Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 11-24-2012, 09:51 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
City: Pender Island
Country: Canada
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 70
So......

If I get my Albin I can't just use a big rock????? ...... I'm appreciating all of this info.............. jp
__________________
Advertisement

Lucy 11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 10:02 PM   #42
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,579
The rock of your choice is fine, provided it is made of galvanized steel shaped like a Super Sarca or Sarca Excel. Even better, a Roc-na.
__________________

__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 09:51 AM   #43
Veteran Member
 
City: Pender Island
Country: Canada
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 70
the Sarcas

I'm understanding the "holding power" of this style of anchor ... a couple of "rookie" questions .......... a "roller anchor" is one that will roll over on the bottom as it is being set ensuring that the "plow"part digs into the muck or ??????? AND Releasing these anchors if they have burrowed four feet into the bottom has been an issue ??????????? AND Haven't done much research into availability in Beautiful British Columbia or Washington State........... anyone know were these Anchors are available?????? stay dry!! jp
Lucy 11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 11:16 AM   #44
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy 11 View Post
I'm understanding the "holding power" of this style of anchor ... a couple of "rookie" questions .......... a "roller anchor" is one that will roll over on the bottom as it is being set ensuring that the "plow"part digs into the muck or ??????? AND Releasing these anchors if they have burrowed four feet into the bottom has been an issue ??????????? AND Haven't done much research into availability in Beautiful British Columbia or Washington State........... anyone know were these Anchors are available?????? stay dry!! jp
JP, anchors like the Manson Supreme, Rocna, Bugel, and Super Sarca have a roll bar that makes it easier for the anchor to be oriented when it hits the bottom to dig in. That's the advantage. The disadvantage is that in some bottom types, it roll bar acts as a 'backboard', filling up with muck and seaweed and keeping the anchor from functioning as well. Additionally, if the anchor has the flukes welded to make a concave surface (Rocna, Manson), these anchors can bring up a ton of sea bed. If they are convex (Super Sarca), this is less of a problem. The idea that the roller bar ensures better setting is debatable, IMHO, as I have never had a Bruce type or other not start to dig in immediately. The issue is whether once the anchor digs in, does it provide sufficient resistance to hold the boat? This is where newer designs like those mentioned above are superior, at least in the lighter weights. The Sarca Excel is likely the best anchor out there because its design (no roll bar) digs in immediately, and it just keeps burying itself. Watch the videos on the Anchor Right site for examples. And, because it has a convex shape, it doesn't bring up as much muck to the surface as other types.

Releasing the roll bar anchors isn't that much different from any other anchor because the roll bar prevents the thing from burying itself that deep. This can be a problem with Danforth types, which can get so deeply set you can't get them out. This happened a couple of years ago with a Coast Guard boat that anchored with a Fortress in a blow for a couple of days. They abandoned the anchor because even with their equipment, it was too far buried to retrieve. I doubt the Excel would present a similar problem because once you start tugging straight up on it, the stock should tilt and the Excel should cut itself free as you pull it up.

And no, the Excel doesn't seem to be conveniently available yet, although a distributor has been identified elsewhere on this site in Seattle who can order them, or you can have one shipped directly from Oz.
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 11:48 AM   #45
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,724
Delfin,
The roll bar orienting the anchor to the correct position for setting is NOT an advantage at all in that ALL other anchors do that as they come to rest on the bottom. The roll bar anchors don't and need the roll bar to insure that they don't just drag along the bottom never even attempting to set.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 12:11 PM   #46
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,265
Just how much better is the Sarca Excel over the similar yet available Lewmar Delta?
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 05:31 PM   #47
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Delfin,
The roll bar orienting the anchor to the correct position for setting is NOT an advantage at all in that ALL other anchors do that as they come to rest on the bottom. The roll bar anchors don't and need the roll bar to insure that they don't just drag along the bottom never even attempting to set.
The drop-drag-and-hope anchors--- Bruce/Claw, CQR, Danforth, etc-- in fact can land in such away as to not be set to dig in immediately. When they do they have to be dragged along in the hope they will orient themselves properly to dig in. The Bruce, for example, can land upside down in its shank and the backside of one fluke tip.

This is the sole reason for the rollbar on the Sarca-Rocna-Manson-Bugel anchors and as far as I'm concerned is the genius behind the concept, whoever came up with it (it wasn't Smith at Rocna). It ensures that no matter how the anchor hits the bottom it will orient itself immediately and automatically in the correct position to slice its sharp fluke sideways down into the bottom like a knife blade after which it will pivot in the bottom to position the full width of the fluke 90 degrees to the direction of pull. This is why these anchors typically set much faster aka in less distance than the drop-and-drag crowd.

Our anchor invariably sets so fast and so hard that when backing down on the anchor it stops the boat so suddenly when the slack in the rode is taken up that it slews the back of the boat around. It has done this so far in every bottom we've anchored in-- mud, sand, gravel, and weedy. Our Bruce never reacted this positively even on the occasions when it set well and quickly. The boat always sort of "oozed" to a stop as the anchor gradually dug in.

My guess is that the setting performance of the Sarca, Manson, and Bugel is the same as our Rocna since they are all just variations on the same very effective theme.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 07:23 PM   #48
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
... Our anchor invariably sets so fast and so hard that when backing down on the anchor it stops the boat so suddenly when the slack in the rode is taken up that it slews the back of the boat around. ...
Sounds like the performances of the two different claws I've employed over the years in the mud bottoms of the San Francisco estuary where tidal currents are usually two knots or more.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 11:06 PM   #49
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
The Bruce, for example, can land upside down in its shank and the backside of one fluke tip.
Might sound easy to you but landing upside down on my shank hurts like hell.
__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 11:26 PM   #50
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,265
"You are illegally anchored" (get the heck out of here), ... "merry Christmas" said this patrol boat. Signs say not to approach within 300 feet of the ships. ... ???



Christmas Eve, 2011, Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 12:45 AM   #51
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,724
Marin sats;

"Bruce/Claw, CQR, Danforth, etc-- in fact can land in such away as to not be set to dig in immediately."

That's absolute bull roar. Any anchor lowered to the bottom will be in the ideal position to set if pulled on it's rode.

"The Bruce, for example, can land upside down in its shank and the backside of one fluke tip." That is the best position for the Claw to set Marin. One of it's outboard flukes is pointed right down on the bottom w about 60% of the anchor weight bearing down on the bottom. That's why the Claws have such a good rep for setting and doing it quickly.

With the roll Bat anchor it won't assume a good position to set by itself so the RB is employed to FORCE it into a usable position to set. After it starts setting the roll bar does nothing but cause trouble. But on the good side is the assumed fact that the RB anchor has higher holding power even with it's RB or "hoop" than it would if it had some other method of orienting itself into a good setting position such as a weighted fluke tip. I think it's viewed as an acceptable compromise.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 01:08 AM   #52
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,265
Eric, the Bruce failed Marin. He's found another "love" and nothing will convince him otherwise unless that new love/anchor fails him.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 01:54 AM   #53
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post

That's absolute bull roar. Any anchor lowered to the bottom will be in the ideal position to set if pulled on it's rode.
That's right, and that's why you have drag them all over hell to get them to work right. If I had a buck for every time we've watched some poor sap with a Bruce or CQR try and try and try to get it to set and finally succeed on the fourth or fifth try we'd have that Fleming by now instead of this pathetic old GB.

The genius of the roll bar is it positions the anchor every time to set right now. No dragging it all over the anchorage while you wait and hope it will dig in. I have very little use for old stuff and I have no use for old, outdated anchor designs.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 04:53 AM   #54
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
Sarca Excel

Hi Marin-Eric.

Rex hear, just thought I would try and clarify a few of your ongoing discussions.

The hoop thingy, I fitted a hoop during development to our anchor design (Super Sarca) for a number of reasons, we wanted an anchor that was multipurpose, it had to have a wide holding area for soft mud, because it was a wide design if upside dow then thats where it stayed unless it was aided with a hoop, we included a pick reef type toe to penetrate harder substrates.


So why did we settle on a hoop rather than a Bruce design.

Bruce, Claw anchors and the type worked well but could on many occasions land upside down in soft mud and the swept up flukes along with the shank would bury upside down and drag.


If you laid them this wasn’t such a problem, in firmer mud it wasn’t a problem, another problem with them on commercial boats is that when deployed in rocks many times they would snap of one fluke on retrieval rendering the anchor useless.


Any way we started out basically following the Bruce concept, concave design and added an extended reef pick type toe, we then whacked a hoop on it to overcome the upside down problem in mud and prevent snapping of a side fluke, we soon learnt why this concept was dropped on the original Bruce anchor, yes Peter Bruce had experimented with this concept and dropped it, there were a couple of standout findings during our development that further influenced us to change to convex design.


When we fitted the hoop to a concave fluke it would most definitely clog in a combination of weed and mud, two, this did create problems in change of tide and setting the anchor in strong wind, this problem has been experienced with many in modern concave designs, believe me it’s out there without being to specific.
No problem with the thick hoops and concave design in clean soft mud, they certainly can bury well down but in general struggle for reasons mentioned in anything other.


And of course the concave has no choice but to bring up all the bait you need to fish when you retrieve them, in some cases they can hold as much as three times the anchors weight in mud. Any way they were our findings during the development of the Super Sarca that was released some 18 years back now.


Marin and Eric.


You are both wright and wrong re your analyses of the various hoop designs, Marin is wright when it comes to his preferred design, the hoop first rights the anchor and then continues to support the toe’s orientation to penetrate, keeping in mind both the main similar concave designs work exactly the same with side entry but with a difference, tip weight, Marin’s design has more than its very similar counterpart.


When it comes to the Super Sarca they are worlds away in design and how they actually work, Eric is right when it comes to the Super Sarca, it does only use the hoop to right itself, as most times it will roll around the hoop landing flat on its fluke presenting it’s turned down toe to the substrate, instant penetration is almost guaranteed in most substrate types, (bedrock excluded) rarely you will see the Super Sarca ever use the hoop to encourage side penetration.


Being of convex design the flukes cutting edges sit unmistaken ably lower than concave, therefore initial set is deeper.

There are skids on concave hoop designs that also to help encourage penetration, the very thick hoop that could restrict the anchor to a shallow set; this I believe is true as there are no videos showing the two similar concave designs burying their hoops out of site.


Super Sarca has the flukes extending just outside of its the hoops perimeter, it is not hollow but solid round, very thin in comparison but is fixed-- reinforced if you like to the top of the shanks rear section via a secondary fluke, this is why if you want to view our videos it is plain to see the hoop although still a restriction, the Super Sarca will and does, in most cases bury it’s hoop completely.


And no, if you want bait you will have to buy it as Super Sarca in most cases because if its convex fluke comes up clean. No extra weight.


Finally Super Sarca is not tip weighted because of its turned down toe, the fluke weight shank and chain is all that is needed to start of a rapid the setting process, unlike the anchors that its’ design is compared to regularly, Super Sarca has another major distinction feature, it is bulk weighted at the rear, as this weight is raised in the setting progress its penetration is boosted in all substrates.

This rear weight also allowed the very first design of a automatic ressetable trip release.


I hope this helps all of you to understand Super Sarca is a totally different breed as to what you are comparing them with.


Who’s got the best anchor, who cares, if a given design works well for you then why fix it.


CEO of Anchor Right Australia.


Rex.
Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 09:52 AM   #55
Veteran Member
 
City: Pender Island
Country: Canada
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 70
thanks Rex ---O.K. I'm hearing the Super Sarca is the most effective anchor ...... any availability in B.C. Canada or Washington State U.S.A. ???????? Rex what's your position on the "swivel issue" ----- is that a helpful addition to your anchoring system??? stay dry!! ps - rcm-sar pender island responded to a mayday yesterday, fellow hit something in his buddies 28'sailboat-holed it and it sank in 200 metres of water.. no dingy/lifejacket that didn't fit .... he didn't end up in the COLD water but very nearly did... lesson be prepared for all eventualities!!!!!!
Lucy 11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 11:29 AM   #56
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,724
Rex,
G-Day down there. Always great to hear from you.
You wrote;

"Bruce, Claw anchors and the type worked well but could on many occasions land upside down in soft mud and the swept up flukes along with the shank would bury upside down and drag."

I think, Rex, That it would have been more appropriate if you had said "would bury on it's side and drag"

I can't see how the Claws could burry upside-down. Especially in soft substrate. There is no provision for the Claw to burry upside-dow at all. It's not even possible for a Claw to set upside-down as it would be "unbalanced" on it's shank and forced by gravity to rotate a bit until one of the outboard flukes would contact the bottom. One of the outboard flukes could do nothing but penetrate with the anchor laying on it's side with the shank down on the bottom and the anchor could do nothing but rotate on further and engage the center fluke with the bottom. So I'm convinced 2 flukes would penetrate. I would listen to an argument that that it may not rotate further but personally I'm convinced in most bottoms the Claw would continue to rotate until "right-side up". The only other way the Claw could "land" would be right-side up in the first place and then promptly (w it's chain attached) fall on it's side when pulled because the weight of the chain would pull the shank down so the Claw would be shank down (for the length of the shank) up-side down and a bit on it's side in it's usual position presenting one of it's outboard flukes to the bottom. And in that position one of the flukes would be bearing straight down (more or less) on the bottom and setting and rotation would be assured. The Manson Ray Claw type has 39% of it's weight on the fluke tip in this shank down position. Other Claws are no doubt similar in this regard. And I think Rex that the Claws land "upside-down" almost always and perform as indicated above.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 11:55 AM   #57
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
My guess is that Rex & Co. actually studied and watched the way the Bruce can land and observed the results he described in his post as opposed to theorizing about it.

I prefer a concave fluke design because by its very nature I believe it presents more resistance to being pulled than a convex fluke. The fact our Rocna can bring up a lot of bottom is irrelevant to me because what it's saying is that it dug in really, really well. We have a very powerful washdown system on our boat thanks to a previous owner so it makes no difference whatsoever how much mud the anchor brings up. Our old Bruce did exactly the same thing.

But regardless of the concave-convex argument, the rollbar anchors as a group present very obvious (to me anyway) advantages over the old drop-drag-and-hope designs. Particularly in the case of the Bruce which time and time again tests out near or at the bottom of the list in terms of holding power. I don't care how fast an anchor sets, if it doesn't hold reliably it's of no use to us whatsoever.

If it was just me saying this then I would say it's just me and is not at all representative of the anchor. But of the boaters I know personally who have or used to have Bruce anchors (and used them for more than just bow decoration) the majority of them have or had problems with them holding or staying put once they had set when they were subjected to higher loads.

If you have a big enough Bruce and a small enough or low-windage enough boat I suppose you could come to count on it. And there will be some bottoms it does better in than others. But as an all-around anchor it's a bad choice in my (and a lot of other people's) opinions.

We have been asked on occasion if we would be willing to sell our genuine Bruce anchor as they are no longer made. As I've mentioned, we use ours to prop open the shop door in the garage. We could do that with a brick. But we will not sell our anchor because we feel it would be irresponsible to pass on such an unreliable piece of hardware to anyone else.

Do I think the rollbar anchors are superior as all-around anchors to anything else out there right now? Absolutely. Do I think there are potentially better future designs possible? Absolutely. And if our rollbar anchor starts failing us the way our Bruce did would we replace it with something that worldwide testimonials declared was better? Absolutely. Would we replace it with an old anchor design with a proven track record of unreliability? Of course not.

Rex's final statement is spot on in my opinion. If you have an anchor that has proven in your anchoring situations to be reliable, then why change it? No sense fixing something that ain't broke. In our case, and in the case of too many people we have come to know here, our Bruce demonstrated time and again that it was "broke." So we went in search of a way to "fix" it, and the rollbar anchor has so proved to be the solution.

And just so we can visualize what Rex is talking about..... Might dig in, might not. Might just slide along, might not. Might dig itself in upside down, might not. Way too many "mights" for me.....
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Bruce 1.jpg
Views:	84
Size:	145.2 KB
ID:	14293   Click image for larger version

Name:	Bruce 2.jpg
Views:	69
Size:	185.7 KB
ID:	14294   Click image for larger version

Name:	Bruce 3.jpg
Views:	80
Size:	194.9 KB
ID:	14295  
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 12:15 PM   #58
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,724
Rex,

You wrote re the SARCA;

"most times it will roll around the hoop landing flat on its fluke presenting itís turned down toe to the substrate, instant penetration is almost guaranteed" Watching your video I was convinced of this and basically believe that the best position for an anchor to do it's business is right-side up. And it's clear how the almost unique feature of your anchor in it's purposely rear ballasted design would cause great pressure on the tip of the shank when the rode is pulled. The angled down "toe" was the hint that the SARCA didn't do it's business usually laying on it's side and would greatly assist setting on short scope. And I thought "where could his rearward ballast be" and of course it's in the hoop. And that gives it the strength it needs and the slenderness to perform submerged without the problems of the "fatter" hoops of other roll bar anchors like Rocna and M Supreme. The more I see of this design Rex the more I like it and the more clever it seems to be.

Rex writes;

"this I believe is true as there are no videos showing the two similar concave designs burying their hoops out of site." Refering to Rocna and M Supreme I assume.

It may be so but I think I actually saw such a video but I also think it was in very soft sand and not under water. If it exists Marin will probably find it.

Rex writes;

"I hope this helps all of you to understand Super Sarca is a totally different breed as to what you are comparing them with."

It's uniqueness is mostly in how it functions as many of it's abilities are not so easily perceived even by those familiar with most anchors but the SARCA is also very distinctive in it's appearance and product identity counts in marketing. I think SARCA is the best but I have several anchors that I do believe are very excellent too. I will go down to Seattle and try to find the SARCA's to see them in person. Thank you Rex.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 01:06 PM   #59
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,724
Marin,
I see your pics of the Claw and if it isn't clear to you that the little fluke isn't pointing straight down w nearly 40% of the anchor's weight bearing nearly straight down on the bottom we should go talk about something else.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 01:23 PM   #60
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Marin,
I see your pics of the Claw and if it isn't clear to you that the little fluke isn't pointing straight down w nearly 40% of the anchor's weight bearing nearly straight down on the bottom we should go talk about something else.

Ah, but it's not pointing straight down. The fluke is angled back and with its rounded, thick point it can act just like a sled runner if the bottom is firm. During our search for a better anchor I came across video of a Bruce doing exactly this. It lands this way and then drags along the bottom on the shank with the one fluke digging a shallow furrow but never actually digging in enough to cause the anchor to rotate and set. Might be rare, but it's been proven to happen and that's good enough for me to reject the design.

If the tip of the fluke was much sharper I suspect that this would greatly reduce the chance of this happening. But it isn't, hence our Bruce's current occupation a a doorstop. For which it is very well suited, I might add. So when your little Claw lets you down you can rest assured that its not been money wasted as you can used it up there in Concrete to prop something open. Would also work well as a wheel-stop I think.
__________________

Marin 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 11:56 AM.


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