Your thoughts on anchors

hmason,
Sorry I barked at you now that I know what your intent was.

Too many guys complain about talking anchors or other things. They say "why do we need to talk about ______? Usually happens on a long thread. And I'm think'in if they don't like reading about it why are they reading about it. I still don't understand it. Why not just keep talking until no one says anything?

Don,
It is an odd looking thing. Here are two pics of the XYZ as manufactured by XYZ. The tip was hard SS and quite pointed as you can see. I wanted more surface area fwd w my mild steel modification. I must have had soft bottoms the 8 or 9 times I used it as it set and held every time. One of those times was a 55 knot gale. 30' 8 ton Willard on an 18lb XYZ. I anchored for a day and a half w an earlier model 13lb XYZ in mud ... probably fairly hard mud. Hard mud dosn't sound right.

Eric, (and interested others), just to clarify one misconception that Eric appears to have fixed in his mind, so maybe others do also. The roll bar is not there to make the anchor roll to upright, in fact it does the opposite, if anything, and Marin commented on this many times, but people still don't get it.

What it does do is two things, pretty much.

1. It helps stop the fluke being fouled by chain falling on top of the anchor before the chain is pulled away from the anchor at the drop, and...

2. It ensures it quickly turns onto its side, with the fluke edge in contact with the bottom, so the sharp point and bevelled edge can dig in quickly, slicing down into the bottom, and it then turns to the upright position as it goes. Then, in all but a very hard bottom, the fluke carries it down under the substrate, (ok, bottom), until the roll bar is in fact buried, the amount buried depending a bit of the softness of the bottom, and the amount of setting pull exerted, but in a soft bottom, the hoop often disappears altogether under the sand/mud. That constitutes a pretty fair whack of bottom-gripping hardware doing the business.
If interested, watch the 3rd video in particular...

Video - anchorright.com.au

Are we there yet...?

For 15 years on daily list serves and forums I have seen anchors discussed extensively, again and again. Too much, perhaps. But then with all the discussion on line, the books and the personal discussions with boaters who anchor full time I have not been bored but educated, causing me to change my anchor and methods of anchoring a couple of times.

I am sure that if I continue to pay attention over the next ten years, I will learn something more. Very little is more important to me than my ground tackle. I go to sleep at night with Bay Pelican, my wife and I being held off a reef by a line of 3/8" chain and a hunk of twisted metal.

As to whether my anchor is the best, it is in fact the best I can figure out based on what I know. Like everything on a boat it is a series of compromises. So I listen to what others are saying to see if the scales have shifted to another approach which I should consider. This will continue as long as I continue boating.

Marty

Ok, well this is weird, I went to edit my post to remove any possible ambiguity or misunderstanding about how the anchor orients itself, but my edited version would not appear, however, when I clicked on quote, to add the following edit, lo and behold the edited version appeared, so there it is below, the important point highlighted in bold...

Peter B said:

2. It ensures it quickly turns onto its side, with the fluke edge in contact with the bottom, so the sharp point and bevelled edge can dig in quickly, slicing down into the bottom, and it then turns to the upright position as it buries itself.

Click to expand...

Peter you've been talking to Marin PM. So have I and I'm sure others. Why he dosn't come out from behind the bushes and talk like a man I don't know. He's basically calling me stupid because I don't "get it" about the roll bar. I get it all right.

It (RB) keeps the anchor from being dragged up side down in an attitude where it will not present it's fluke tip to the bottom.

That's all there is to it. If you let out considerable scope the anchor will lay on it's side. When you pull the rode close to horizontal it will pull the shank end down and then the anchor will be on it's side. On very short scope the anchor will be lifted to a vertical position by the shank and rode. Extremely short scope and the RB anchor will just drag along on it's aft fluke bottom and fail to set.

Peter your description seems the same as mine but in different words.

" It ensures it quickly turns onto its side, with the fluke edge in contact with the bottom, so the sharp point and beveled edge can dig in quickly, slicing down into the bottom, and it then turns to the upright position as it goes. Then, in all but a very hard bottom, the fluke carries it down under the substrate, (ok, bottom), until the roll bar is in fact buried, the amount buried depending a bit of the softness of the bottom, and the amount of setting pull exerted, but in a soft bottom, the hoop often disappears altogether under the sand/mud. That constitutes a pretty fair whack of bottom-gripping hardware doing the business."

If I said the RB makes it turn upright I was wrong. I suppose I meant upright enough so it wasn't up side down. That's all the RB does is insure that the anchor does not remain up side down. There's nothing more to it and I've seen that all along.

Still the RB impacts performance in a negative way when buried. The RB tends to pitch the fluke up as it's dragged fwd and it can be seen that that is a bad thing .. BUT.. the fluke over rides that tendency w a stronger tendency to pitch down. Otherwise the RB anchor wouldn't work. And they do work and work well. The point I was trying to make is that if one didn't have the RB and the weight of the RB was invested into the fluke when the anchor set it would have considerably more performance. But in order to be better than the RB anchor another design feature must be employed to do the same job. Such a feature may be on many anchors already in existence Like the Spade. The Spade needs to sacrifice blade area or strength to have the weighted tip. Just like the RB anchors need to sacrifice weight and some negative pitch characteristics to do the same job. Just because the weighted tip isn't the latest feature to insure that an anchor works right does not mean it's inferior. A new gimmick like a roll bar may just be the latest effort to get people to buy brand __.

But again the Boss anchor seems to have the fewest of the elements that we know causes performance loss. It looks best but often looking best dosn't amount to much. The RB anchors have proven that they work very well indeed. And a lot of other anchors too but I'm convinced a better anchor could be had through design.

Marin and Peter seem to think the RB does some magic trick. I hope that's just my interpretation of what was said. It's easy to mis-communicate on this forum.

manyboats said:

Here is the modified XYZ I've been referring to. See that it...

Click to expand...

...is on the dining room table.

I'd be in big trouble.

Having decided to replace my 45# Manson Supreme with a 60# Manson Supreme or Boss, I contacted Ned Woods, VP, Sales and Marketing at Manson Anchors in NZ, to ask his opinion. I said that either anchor would fit my bow pulpit. He recommended staying with the Supreme and I did.

Manyboats--- thanks, all is good. Howard

I respect that a lot Hmason. They know things we'll never know about their products and will be very unlikely to steer you wrong. BUT they could steer you to the Supreme because they make more money on it or they know they are going to drop one item next week. I did say the boss looks good but gave no recommendation beyond that as I have. No knowledge or experience w the Boss. I am a bit surprised they didn't recommend the new product as most companies like to push their new things (products) to get them on their feet sales wise. Could be that the Boss has a problem and their about ready to make a change or pull it off the market. Anyway I'm glad you did what you did and that you shared w us. Thank you.
PS ... In your picture it looks like the Manson has a very wide throat angle. Perhaps that's why they do better at short scope.

Spy,
Haha how'ed you know it was a dining room table? Thanks ... I think. It is and I built it Years ago. I'm now in the process of refinishing it.

Get a hold of yourselves. Keep the anchor that works for you.

Looks like you've got a death grip on it Mark.

And from the price tag it looks like it's never been used.

I have one of those little guys too.

manyboats said:

...
I have one of those little guys too.

Click to expand...

I don't. Took the photo at my local marine dealer (it's not there now, presumed sold) for your and Marin's benefit.

Does that death grip indicate the small anchor's wish to dig deep?

I recently replaced our 105lb CQR with a 80 lb Rocna and the only problem is that I am told I will need a bigger wash down system for the Rocna as half the ground will come up with it.... my opinion is as long as it does come back up especially at one boat unit a pop plus rode...

We will find out this weekend.

ps The CQR is for sale for a fair price....

gwkiwi,
What was the problem with the CQR?

Here are the results of a mud anchor test.

Looks like a Spade might be better than the Rocna. Just for mud but perhaps more.
This was from a mud only Practical Sailor anchor test;

"The Rocna was designed in New Zealand and is built in Canada. We’d describe it as a plow-style anchor with a roll bar fitted at the rear of the foot. It is constructed of galvanized steel and is available in 11 sizes from 9 to 243 pounds. The maker claims the roll bar, plus the chisel tip and skid rails on the foot, will always force the Rocna to dig in to any bottom. We had no trouble setting this anchor in either test and rated it Good in both tests.
At the long scope it performed well, hitting 500 pounds and then holding 440 pounds while only dragging about 6 feet. It did not do as well at the short scope where it dragged through the mud at 300 pounds. We found the 28-pound Rocna 15 priced at $383. Like all Rocna anchors, it carries a lifetime warranty against manufacturer defects.
Bottom Line: Expensive with less than stellar holding power when set on a short scope."

And;

"conclusions
We have to wonder—based on the prices they seek—whether some of these anchor makers think their products are made from unobtain-
ium rather than steel or aluminum. For us to select an anchor that costs nearly $400 as top pick when you can get nearly equal results at far less expense, the anchor needs to perform impeccably. Otherwise we’d seek out a less expensive product every time. The only an- chor that performed at that level was the XYZ. We awarded it a top pick based on its performance. Other top performers, in order, were the HydroBubble, Bulwagga, and Davis Talon. All three are sub- stantially less expensive than the XYZ. The HydroBubble performed nearly equal to the XYZ while both the Bulwagga and Davis trailed a step behind."

And;

the Sarca (Sand and Rock Com- bination Anchor), an anchor we’d describe as a hybrid plow-style, in 13 sizes in both hot-dipped galva- nized steel and stainless steel. We tested a galvanized No. 4. It has a couple of features not seen on most other plow-style anchors: a hoop on the rear of the anchor and a full- length slotted shank. According to Anchor Right, the hoop does two things: It facilitates rollover should the anchor land on the bottom inverted and it keeps chain from tangling in the flukes. The slotted shank serves as an automatic trip to allow easy anchor removal from rocky bottoms.
Overall performance of the Sarca was very good. It hit and held 500 pounds at a 7:1 scope as well as managing to hold 420 pounds at a 3:1 scope. We rated it Good and Fair for setting in our pair of tests—it took two attempts to set on one test. Our Sarca No. 4 weighed in at 30 pounds. We found it priced at $412 and carries a five- year warranty.
Bottom Line: A good overall

There are many choices and some of the older anchors like Danforth types and Claws that hold well (relatively) at short scope. The Manson Supreme does well at short scope. Think about how much line you'd need to deploy to get to 5 to 7-1 scope. Don't forget about high tide.

gwkiwi,
That's something I need to address .. washdown system.

manyboats said:

"The Rocna was designed in New Zealand and is built in Canada..

Click to expand...

(Eric-- This is wrong. See PM)

manyboats said:

Marin and Peter seem to think the RB does some magic trick. I hope that's just my interpretation of what was said. It's easy to mis-communicate on this forum.

Click to expand...

Eric, just two final points....

No magic trick, but sets almost like magic...quickly and reliably, and in a greater variety of bottoms, thus coming as close as I suspect one will ever get, to a true 'one-type-suits-all-bottoms', type of anchor. That's it...the entire thing which makes these anchors so worth considering, especially if you have ever had one of the older types fail quite often like I did with CQRs.
There are others who will hold harder in certain situations - most don't..!
But the real plus is the quick setting and versatility...end of story.

Oh, the other point is...try to get a bit more relaxed over short scope performance, as most don't have to anchor in those conditions, and short scope anchoring is a dodgy compromise with even the best of short scope anchors...

First, this does NOT mark a return to posting to the open forum, in large part to avoid endless and mostly pointless threads like this one.

That said, I'm going to make it even more endless and pointless.

Peter has been carrying the load on his own here so I thought I would break my own rule and chime in. As usual, with an analogy, which I've probably used before countless times, another reason for not wasting everyone's time posting to the open board.

One of my all-time favorite quotes came from the man who was arguably Boeing's most talented and creative design engineer, Ed Wells. The first plane he worked on after joining the company fresh out of school was the Monomail. The last plane he worked on as an engineer was the 767. Known as the father of the B-17, he was probably THE driving force behind moving Boeing into using jet propulsion for commercial transports.

In an interview in the mid-1980s I asked him why he had been so willing to embrace the then-still rather iffy jet engine in favor of the tried-and-true piston engines that had so far done a stirling job of powering commercial aircraft. He thought about it for a moment and then said, "Because I realized that life's too short to waste it working on propellers."

And that is how I feel about the old-generation anchors.

I do not feel this way because these anchors don't work. They do. So does a Model A. So does a DC-7. All these old things work just fine today in the same manner as they worked when they were created. But like Ed Wells' pistons and propellers, there is no reason to stay with old fashioned performance and reliability when there is something so much better out there.

In the case of anchors, today it's the rollbar anchor. Tomorrow it will undoubtedly be something else.

Eric says that rollbar anchors are "fashionable" so that's primarily why more and more people are buying them. I'm sure there are some people who buy them for that reason, but that's not why anyone who wants outstanding anchor performance and understands how the rollbar anchor works buys them.

We'd never even heard of the damn things when we started looking to replace our drag-prone Bruce. A post on the GB forum made us aware of the existance of the so-called "new generation" anchors, so we looked into them. I called Rocna in New Zealand and talked to them for an hour or so about their anchor. We read dozens of user testimonials from all over the world. We studied how and why the rollbar anchor works.

And in the end, we realized that "life is too short to waste it" messing around with old-fashioned anchors when something that truly represented a new way of thinking was available. (Yes, I know the Rocna is based on the Bugel but Peter Smith did add some innovations of his own to the concept.)

Is this a condemnation of the old-generation anchors? Well, I suppose it is. One can drive very successfully across the country in a Model A, and one can have a nice flight across the Pacific in a DC-7. But outside of nostalgic or historic reasons, why would anyone want to?

I realize this is just one more meaningless thread about anchors, and nobody is going to change their minds. It's just anchors after all. You can hold your boat in place with a few barrels welded together and filled with concrete.

But while it's not turbofans and fly-by-light, there is a science to making something small dig into the bottom quickly, and a variety of bottoms at that, and then stay there with a hell of a force trying to pull it out. There are physics and geometry and metalurgy, and the motion of shapes moving through different materials, all of which can be manipulated to be more effective, or less effective.

The rollbar anchor represents a manipulation of these things to be more effective than the anchors that came before. The Fisherman, Navy, Kedge, Danforth, CQR, Bruce, etc. represent a manipulation of these things that were more effetive than whatever came before them. A rock I guess, I don't know.

Anyway, I think Peter has done a good job of explaining why, to him, the rollbar anchor-- a Sarca in his case--- is superior as an all-purpose, small boat anchor to all the designs that have come before. Our own rollbar anchor so eclipses the performance of our old-generation anchor it still amazes me today, and we've been using the thing for some eight years now.

Now, it's 100% true that every anchor works perfectly until the day it doesn't. The deal to me with the rollbar anchors is the day it doesn't is a lot less likely to arrive than it is with the old-generation anchors. So when it comes to risk reduction, these are the kinds of odds I like to have working for me.

Whether one buys into a new design or not is an individual matter. I know a lot of old codgers who think the DC-7, or to most of these guys, the DC-3, is just swell. They think the old stiuff is great and the new stuff is crap. And they can cite all kinds of reasons for their beliefs although I suspect the real reason is they simply don't understand the new stuff. It's hard to like what you don't understand. Well, that's fine and it's no skin of my nose if they feel that way.

But I'm with Ed Wells. Old was always great in its day, but old's day is always over. So unless one is a museum curator, I can see no point in hanging with the old stuff. Innovation assisted by technology brings better performance, and that's as true for anchors as it is for airliners.

I've said all this crap before---it's all in the archives. But now that I've written it-- again-- I might as well leave it there and I'll go back to the far more sane (and quiet) world of the PM.

Marin said:

First, this does NOT mark a return to posting to the open forum.

Click to expand...

Yes it does....

On come on back.

You know we miss you.

Except for Eric.

He is having a great time dissing Rocnas.

Spy, you are one of the funniest guys on this forum

To me what makes an anchor work is weather it can dig in and how well it holds.

To get an idea of how well it holds is simply a matter of area being dragged thru the bottom, projected area.

Just look down the anchor shank at the area that digs in, usually a Danforth is king per weight.

To dig in nothing beats a plow , but the projected area is less so a 35 Danforth might need a 60 plow (CQR) to get the same holding after the dig in.

Nothing beats the ancient Yachtsman at tall grass or kelp , but then a 100+LB might be required to get the same area digging into the bottom .

At least the Yachtsman comes apart or folds to drag it on deck.

ANY other new majical shape has to be looked at to see how it differs from the tried and true , and why its worth $20 a pound .

The underlying theme here is that one must really UNDERSTAND how thier anchor of choice works, and understand how to properly set that anchor.

And practise makes almost perfect.

So while we are sitting here playing anchor ping pong, we should be out there digging in for the night!


By the way has anyone dived on their anchor to inspect what it's doing? We have several times and it's a learning experience if you never have.

jleonard said:

By the way has anyone dived on their anchor to inspect what it's doing? We have several times and it's a learning experience if you never have.

Click to expand...

I use to do that frequently while cruising with my brother in the Sea of Cortez. As you have written, it's a real education as to what the anchor is trying to do. Many times, the Danforth could not penetrate the sand and gravel bottom that is found in many of the inlets an coves of the Gulf of California. I actually had to help the thing get started by shoving the points of the anchor into the bottom by hand.

I get a kick out of this anchor debate conducted by some by people who have never seen one trying to dig itself in. (Other than on a beach in a video. )

Yes, I have dived the anchor. If you anchor in some relatively shallow, clear water areas like the Bahamas or FL Keys, a looky box comes in handy. I just take the dinghy, float over the anchor, and take a look. Makes me sleep better knowing the anchor is set well.

I love it ....... anchor ping pong.

I've never dived on any anchor but I've seen many videos of anchors setting. Looks like it's gotta be soft stuff to get buried. For years in the past I don't think anchors were intended to bury themselves. Navy, Dreadnought, Kedge, Danforth, CQR, and many others were not conceived to bury. Many went up to their shank but no further and probably most modern anchors most all the time don't take their attachment shackle below. I can't imagine a CQR shank being pulled completely down. So unless you set your anchor hard in a soft bottom you're using a non burying type most all the time. So the concept that your anchor is going to be buried way down there is false.

Here is an anchor test that shows much underwater video.http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/Anchor%20Tests/Yachting%20Monthly%20-Anchor%20Test%20Nov09.pdf
You'll notice that the steel Spade has a great performance but the aluminum Spade flops. But not as bad as the XYZ in this test. This XYZ has a different tip than mine ... glad I didn't get this one. I think this model has been dropped. Interesting how they put all those anchors on the same boat and bow roller.

Jay would your observations confirm that. And what kind of bottoms do you most often anchor in? And what anchor do you use? If you dive often perhaps we can learn from your experience.

Peter if one is to buy an anchor and has the choice of one that holds at long scope and short scope or an anchor that holds only at long scope which one is the best anchor? And what pleasure boat skipper NEVER needs to anchor at short scope? Anchorages DO vary and many DO fill up w many other boats requiring anchoring at short scope. No matter where you are you'll find yourself in restricted space and need short scope performance. That said I'll drop it for awhile unless someone asks me a direct question. I'm sure you're right that many are getting sick of hearing about it.

Spy your right I am sick of hearing Marin's in with the new out w the old. But I did get him out from behind the bushes. He'll come out posting on the board soon enough. Mark my words. But I won't hear what he says as I'm putting him on my ignore list along w psneeld. I was urged to use it by the mods and it worked so well w psneeld I'll apply it to Marin. I'll miss a lot of what he has to say though as frequently he has very good objective stuff to say but the Rocna this GB that has got to stop and the ignore list will do that well.
For those that haven't used the ignore list you can still see when they make a post and just following a post you've made you can imagine what they say especially when it's someone you know as well as I know Marin. I'd rather it be otherwise but I'm sure it's the nature of the forum and can't be had any other way.

One more comment to you Marin. The Bruce anchor worked well in several ways (like the Rocna) and it soon became fashionable .. like the Rocna. The Bruce still works better in several ways than the Rocna but it's a bit like "your father's Oldsmobile" now. The Rocna will become the Bruce in some time. But the Rocna will perform just as well as it does now ... then ... just like the Bruce does now.

The anchor discussion is a long one. It makes me think of something I was told when I was in the Chargers training camp as a quarterback and Jack Kemp told me this; just remember, you will always have people sitting in their chairs telling you what they would have done, but until they are on the field like you, taking the snaps and making the decisions, what they say is only their opinion, not the way you should do it.

Everyone has their own anchor of choice or by default and it only works when you practice it, deploy it and get use to it. Theory is only as good as the implementation. I use a Rocna because I have found it to work best for me, period. Nothing being said either for or against any other anchor out there, this is what works for me.

As far as using the ignore feature on the site, I think it can be a useful tool if you feel the need to. I do not feel like you should publicly announce who you apply this to. That is your personal decision and should be kept that way. Anything else I consider distasteful and inappropriate. Disagreements are between the parties involved not the entire forum.

manyboats said:

...The Bruce still works better in several ways than the Rocna...

Click to expand...

Eric: ?

!. Sits much better on the bow of most boats on the bow roller and/or pulpit.

2. FAR less expensive

3. I gotta say it ... has much better short scope performance.

4. More attractive and far less intrusive of over the bow visibility.

5. Less likely to be stolen.

#1 and 2 are probably the main reasons people buy new Claws. I don't know but I suspect that more are sold now than any modern anchor. Many manufacturers put them on new boats for 32 and #1 in that order. Commercial fishermen choose them when they can't afford a Forfjord or find a Dreadnought. Is the Claw not the most popular anchor there is?

Keith,
The thing w Marin and I has been going on for over 5 years. The forum is part of it so my presenting it to the board is in my opinion appropriate. I know you tell students how to behave in school a lot of the time but to tell me how to conduct my personal business is not appropriate here.

Eric

Bay Pelican is set up with an 88lb Rocna and a 65lb
Bruce on its bow. Following the discussion I am hearing that if I must anchor with short scope 3 to 1, 4 to 1 (?) then the Bruce might be the better choice. Two weaknesses of my Bruce, in this comparison, are that it is 33lbs lighter than the Rocna and it has only 60ft of chain (200ft of line) versus 300 for the Bruce. Of course short scope is not 300 ft of chain.

Thoughts, Eric, anyone

Marty

manyboats said:

I know you tell students how to behave in school a lot of the time but to tell me how to conduct my personal business is not appropriate here.

Click to expand...

The problem, Eric, is that it is not "personal" when you announce it to the world.

It's really not anyone else's business who you choose to ignore. You're pretty quick to give others advice, now let's see how quick you are to accept some.