Choosing the Right Anchor for Your Trawler

FF,It is amazing how often emotions and opinions rule. Sometimes (often) we hold up facts to support our notions even when we know they don't hold up to objective scrutiny.
What in the world is "Same with Liberals religion". Please don't reply here. It's the conservatives that have most of the religious agenda. But religion, Marxism and presidents neeeeed to be only on OTDE. You should read Investment Biker by Jim Rogers.


Eric


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Friday 11th of June 2010 08:03:46 AM

I got my new Manson anchor today and I'm very impressed w it. It's bigger than I expected and weighs 17.5lbs instead of 15. Suites me fine as I almost got the 18lb Rocna because it was a bit heavier. The roll bar is larger in dia. than I thought it would be and I'm sure now the roll bar types get much of their holding power from the interference drag between the sides of the roll bar and the fluke. The thing looks seriously strong. I won't be shy about huck'in it out on the rocks. In fact I'm so pleased w it I think I may not need any other anchors. Of course I haven't even got it wet yet.*I have a 5/8" rode and think a 1/2" trip line would be fine but part of me thinks that may be over kill. I want a sacrificial 100' extension on my main rode because it's expensive Brait. At 350' I should prolly wait until I need to cut 75 or so feet off but then I'll need a new anchor too. Think I'll use the trip line and hope for the best.
By the way the sunny weather just quit. Raining hard and blow'in 30 or more inside the bay. It's almost 60 degrees though. I wonder where Tom (sunchaser) is now. He's prolly testing his anchor somewhere. Wish you'd have gone w him Marin.
Here's a picture of a fishing boat in Craig w a big Forfjord on the bow. Most of them carry the Forfjords vertically as in the pic.


Eric

You should read Investment Biker by Jim Rogers.


Read that about 20 years ago.

It simply proves that where there is corrupt and total gov , there is abject poverty.

Cruise on down to Haiti , then visit the Dom Rep, big difference , when private property ownership is permitted!

Just as a passing final comment re the anchors of the type like Danforth, Forfjord, Fortress etc. What do they all resemble?....large ship anchors. Why do large ships use them? Because they suit the near-vertical, through the hawse-hole-in-the-bow arrangement for stowing - that's the only stowing method they do suit, and if heavy enough, work reliably and well on virtually any bottom. However, that's the snag. They gotta be heavy, and because of their (heavy means big) size and shape they are absolute dogs to stow neatly, and launch and retrieve....something we do a lot more than ships, and even fishing boats do, especially with a bow fitting/sprit like most of us have on the type of boats most of us have. Otherwise, yeah, we'd all have them I guess.

It doesn't require a 10,000lb navy anchor to be stored in a hawse hole , simple instalation of the hole in the proper spot does it.

The usual hassle is the bulkwards are not deep enough .

Our 90/90 has a watertight bulkhead (offshore boat) so the deck on top of the space was installed a foot lower than the fore deck.

An errant wave drains in seconds , but the location does allow the carry of 35 HT Dabforth or CQR (its a small 32 ft, boat) .

It its really nice to know no anchor cleaning is required , no matter what is brought up.

And its also nice to sit in the space , almost a bow cockpit, and let the boat sail herself.


The added construction time , and lack of owner demand is why this is not as common as it should be.

I'd like to see a picture of that FF. Do you store the rode in your "anchor cockpit" or does it go below in the usual manner? I've seen some sport boats w what I think your'e describing. Perhaps your winch and "rode hole" is aft on the main deck.*Is your boat 32' ?? I assumed all this time it was 40' Looks like 50'


Peter,Good point. I've never liked bow pulpits. Stupid looking things that could tear off your cap rail or worse if you bumped hard into a piling or whatever. And then most boaters think they get free moorage for those things stickin out into the walking space at almost all the marina's. Well I looked in my 1953 Motor Boating magazine and * * ..NO bow pulputs except on one sport fishing boat and there was no sign of it being used for an anchor. I have never noticed it before but most of the larger boats in the old mag had a small bent arm mast similar to our dinghy launching masts of today on the bow. I saw winches too but no anchors were hung on the bow like most do now. The boats sure look better. I believe the anchors were stowed on deck (almost all Danforth type) or removed from the rode and stored elsewhere. It's obvious that our current anchors were designed out of convenience and to some degree * .. laziness. Now we have push button anchoring where we don't even have to send the wife out on the bow to to do anchor battle. If we didn't invent anchor retrieval and storage as we know it we'd probably be still using Danforth anchors with the same holding power as these new anchors but not much capability on rocks. So, Peter it looks like the #1 design criteria that has determined the basic shape our anchors is stowability *and convenience * *.. not anchoring performance. And I do recall one of the hot selling points for the Danforth was that it stowed flat * *.. as in on the deck * *.. the proper place for an anchor * ..then. If form follows function we now know the most important element of the design of our anchors is stowability and convenience.


Eric










-- Edited by nomadwilly on Saturday 12th of June 2010 02:30:45 PM

A life-long sailboat sailor on our dock told me that the main reason so many sailboats carry CQR anchors is that it was the first "multi-purpose" anchor to come out that would stow well on the bow of a sailboat. Danforth's are great in the fairly limited kinds of bottoms they're great in. But rocky, grassy, or hard-packed bottoms are not so good. Also bottoms with loose rocks or debris as it apparently doesn't take much to jam a fluke and then the anchor will never set.

The CQR plow was designed to work in a much wider variety of bottoms, as well as stow well on the bow or pulpit of a boat. Hence their continued popularity.

I don't like the CQR and would never have one, but I do not believe the notion that the only criteria that has driven anchor design beyond the basic Danforth has been convenience and laziness. I think the so-called "new generation" anchors are far superior to the "old standards" by nature of their designs.

Hi Marin,Did the CQR come before the Bruce? I think it did but I'm quite sure these were the anchors that brought about the "hang it on the bow" stowage and that led to self launching. And since these anchors had less than stellar performance I'd say the convenience of the storage issue was the most important element of their design. Certainly not the only criteria. There were some stepping stone designs that were/are better like the Delta but a lot of time passed before the roll bar style emerged. At this point in time they seem to be superior but all we've got to go n is:
1. *Our own experience
2. *Dock talk
3. *Anchor tests
4. *Popularity
5. *Salesmen.
You and I both have something else as a primary anchor but it is a fact that in one or all the Yachting Monthly anchor tests a Danforth design anchor, a Fortress, out performed all other anchors in holding power tests and weighed 10lbs less. If the Fortress had been of equal weight there would have been no comparison.
Unless one has only one anchor (bad seamanship) one dosn't need an anchor that performs on all bottoms. So we all have the 2nd anchor anyway. It just takes a min to switch rodes. Bottoms that would give the Fortress fits are not rare but not (in my opinion) common either. In mud there are few anchors that perform well and the Fortress is almost certainly the best. The first roll bar anchor was not a stellar performer either. Anchors will get better but it may take quite a while as the convenience of bow storage and launching may be suppressing development again as it did in the heyday of Bruce/CQR. I still wish Mr Cook and Old Salt would weigh in here w their extensive experience.


Eric

I believe you're correct in that the CQR predates the Bruce. All the anchoring tests we reviewed in the process of selecting first our Bruce and later our Rocna put the Danforth design at the top of the list in terms of holding power in bottoms that were ideal for that design. Most anchor tests are conducted in sand or "normal" mud bottoms, hence the consistent top marks for the Danforth design.

A Danforth actually stows and deploys very well on the pulpit of our boat. In fact, this is the type of anchor that was on the boat when we bought it. Which makes sense since it spent its whole life in San Francisco Bay until we came along. The previous owners took it up the Sacramento River a fair amount which I assume has a mud bottom. So the Danforth was a smart choice for that area.

Not so much up here, although muddy anchorage bottoms are not uncommon. But so is eelgrass and seaweed and gravel and rocky bottoms, all of which can make it difficult to get a Danforth design to set well.

After a bunch of years of unreliable performance we decided that the very poor holding power of the Bruce far outweighed its excellent setting characteristics, and we went in search of something else.* We had no specific types or brands in mind.* We had purchased the Bruce largely because it is the anchor of choice for most powerboats up here and we assumed that this was because it was the best performer.* So while we didn't have any preconcieved notions about any other anchor types or makes (other than the Danforth type) we did have our requirements well defined. In order of importance, they were:

1. Holds extremely well in as wide a variety of bottoms as possible.
2. Sets fast and solidly in as wide a variety of bottoms as possible.
3. Resets fast and solidly if a wind change pulls it out.
4. Is very well and strongly made.
5. Can be easily backed out with a trip line if necessary.
6. Stows well on our pulpit.

We read lots of reviews of various anchor types, looked at lots of anchor tests, and read a lot of independent testimonials, all of which began to focus our attention on the new-generation anchors, specifically the roll-bar spade anchors. After reading as much as we could about them and studying their similarities and differences, we decided that the Manson has two inferior design attributes compared to the Rocna, so we bought a Rocna. So far, we've not been sorry.



-- Edited by Marin on Sunday 13th of June 2010 01:44:49 AM

Marin summed up the prerequisites of a good anchor as...

"1. Holds extremely well in as wide a variety of bottoms as possible.
2. Sets fast and solidly in as wide a variety of bottoms as possible.
3. Resets fast and solidly if a wind change pulls it out.
4. Is very well and strongly made.
5. Can be easily backed out with a trip line if necessary.
6. Stows well on our pulpit."

I couldn't agree more. However I also don't grieve the departure of the stowing of the anchor flat on the deck and respectfully suggest Eric that you don't waste any energy grieving after that era either. I used Danforths on my yachts, each stowed flat, and I had to haul them in by hand and there was nothing good about it. I don't mind the look of a sturdy, businesslike bowsprit and winch to house and retrieve the anchor. I think the self-launched deployment and powered retrieval this arrangement allows is simply mooorvelous, and would never go back. It allows for that extra weight we've all agreed is good, and the added safety of speedy deployment and retrieval in an emergency without the danger of the SO or skipper having to perch on a thrashing bow in nasty weather, which is when most sea-related dramas occur.* I also have vivid recollections of dragging anchor in our yacht, after it appeared set, so we were happily snorkeling a small way off when a passing boater called out "did we know we were dragging....?" Great - scooted back in the dinghy, and hauled the damn Danforth in, only to find one fluke point embedded in a discarded food can. Marin's point illustrated perfectly. So I applaud ongoing development in this most important function, and long may they keep improving. That's why those of us who have invested in newer designs keep raising the issue. We want to share the good news so others will also benefit. Not because we want to crack on about what we have as an exercise in one-upmanship.

-- Edited by Peter B on Sunday 13th of June 2010 05:07:24 AM

"Do you store the rode in your "anchor cockpit" or does it go below in the usual manner? "

Nope, since we usually cruise for weeks on end inshore in the US so the chain rode is almost never used , its for the Bahamas with coral .

My preferred setup is a Danforth with a short (too big to fit the 3/8 Gypsy) 7/16 high test chain and usually modest 7/16 or 1/2 inch nylon.

The boat has a dog house with twin Dorade vents deck mounted in front.

This allows the air to the deck house or directly below in any weather.

The vent scoops (4in Nicro Fico) of the Dorade are used as posts to figure 8 the line.

Its out of the way for deck activities , yet ready to shoot at any time.

A other advantages are the line is drying above deck, no dead stuff scent below ,

and since each turn is about a fathom its easy to keep track of hoe much rode is in use.

In the Bahamas the chain drops directly below , BUT for a longish offshore voyage ,( Bermuda , Antigua) the chain is stored at the foot of the mast , to pull 350 lbs out of the bow .

FF

Hey, you guys are good. You leave me almost completely disarmed. Youv'e taken objectivity to a new high. Having something that works well under most to most all conditions and having it handy and easy to use is not only convenient but but now we have much increased safety. Because of the points you've made boating is easier, more fun and less work doing battles w conditions and equipment.*Here's where I'm not totally disarmed. The yachts of the 50s were far more beautiful than the plastic boats we have now. And bow pulpits are as far as I can see totally useless. What are they for other than for very specialized fishing boats in southern waters. I can see a good bow chock/anchor nesting structure that sticks out a bit but pulpits serve no function at all except that I'm sure some (perhaps many) think they look modern, vogue or cool.
AND some of our modern anchors are (from an art standpoint) really very attractive such as the Spade and Delta. Many of the older anchors were quite ugly like the claw that was a Danforth like thing that looked like a tool of the devil. However, in this plastic age things of beauty that are pleasing to the eye are becoming an exceptional find.
Well Marin, and Peter (to a significant extent) you talked me into getting a new anchor and I suspect I'll not be sorry at all. Thanks guys.


Eric


PS
the Manson has two inferior design attributes compared to the Rocna,


I know your'e talking about welding 2 plates together and the extra weight of the shank required to facilitate adding the slot. I know who you've been listening to Marin and I'm glad all he can find to criticize is fly flit. I agree w him and you in principal. I'll trade that for better short scope performance any day. I'll just attach my trip line to the end of the slot and under the roll bar. The slot dosn't get the lifting point far enough back to be really effective * *.. in my opinion.


Fred, You were posting when I was. I sure would like to learn more about your boat. I think it would be right at home in Alaskan waters. Sounds like a good objective anchoring system too. Pics?


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Sunday 13th of June 2010 09:06:21 AM

Eric---

The two design features I don't care for on the Manson are what Manson calls "winglets" on each side of the fluke and the design of the shank. The design of the winglets (Peter Smith calls them "skid plates") on the Rocna is such that it forces the anchor to pivot down and slice the fluke into the bottom more positively according to the comparative performance reviews we read. It's a subtle difference but a difference nevertheless.

The Manson's shank is less than ideal to my way of thinking. While I know the full-length slot concept has its proponents, we read too many accounts of a wind shift causing a boat to move out to the side of the anchor enough to slide the rode shackle to the fluke end at which point the anchor immediately backed out of the bottom. Where if the rode had stayed attached to the upper end of the anchor, the chances were much lower than the anchor would have been pulled free (assuming it was set well to begin with). Obviously there is a point where a wind shift and sufficient strength will unset any anchor (at which point you hope it sets again quickly), but there seems to be a gray area out to the side where the slot ensures that the anchor will be pulled out where it might not be if the rode remained attached to the end of the shank.

Granted, the Manson has a hole at the end to attach the rode so it will not slide down to the fluke end, but since every comment I have read from people who have Manon's say they use the hole, not the slot, the slot struck us as not worth having. It's a great idea with regards to freeing a fouled anchor, no question, and it eliminates the need for a trip line. But have a very workable trip line setup (carried over from our old Bruce) so we saw no value in the slot for us.

I don't know enough about steel and welding to have any opinion on Manson's two-plate method, and the weight of the shank is not something I'd be concerned about (but then I'm not pulling an anchor up by hand).

Hi Marin,I like the winglets as they probably keep the ass end of the anchor from sinking down and ruining the angle of attack of the tip * * *.. helping the anchor to set. A good thing but I thought both Rocna and Manson have (for all PP) the same winglets. Oh well * * .. as long as it sets. I plan to put a bolt through the slot at the attach end so the attach point will remain fixed. I'm going to use a trip line attached to the other end (aft) of the slot and pass it UNDER the roll bar. This should provide a good angle to pull out backwards. And of course my slot will be useless baggage but the shanks shortness and wider angle, I think, gives the anchor the ability to work well at short scope. If you anchor in water as shallow as 50' you still over 500' diameter swinging room and if you anchored in 100' of water (not the usual but something I'd like to have the option to do) you'd need 1000' of swinging room. All the above is at 5-1 scope so I'd like good solid 3-1 performance.


Eric

Guys I have now sent out enquires re a new SARCA or SARCA Excel anchor.
Possibly a size 8 or 9.
Looks like they may be the goods and better the larger than smaller as long as I can fit it over my bow roller.
Will let you all know how it goes and give photos of the fit if and when I do the deed.
The 2 ploughs then become backup along with the reef picks and the spade.

Benn

-- Edited by Tidahapah on Sunday 13th of June 2010 05:14:28 PM

nomadwilly wrote:I like the winglets as they probably keep the ass end of the anchor from sinking down and ruining the angle of attack of the tip * * *.. helping the anchor to set. A good thing but I thought both Rocna and Manson have (for all PP) the same winglets.

Click to expand...

Eric---The purpose of the winglets (or skid plates) is the same on both anchors. They give the anchor a pivot point when it's lying on its side, which is how the roll bar forces it to end up on the bottom no matter how it lands.* So when you pull on the anchor to set it, the wde end of the fluke assisted by the pivoting force from the winglet/skid plate on the down side of the anchor force the point of the fluke to cut cut sideways into the bottom just like a knife blade being pivoted down.* The design of the Rocna's skid plate is a bit different than the winglet of the Manson in that the Rocna's skid plate will get a better "grip" on the bottom as the anchor is pulled forward, so it will drive the point of the fluke in and down a little harder, which is what you want.* Again, it's a subtle difference but I figure in anchoring every little bit helps.

*

You shouldn't have to fasten a bolt into the end of the slot in the Manson to keep your rode shackle from sliding down to the fluke end.* The anchor is made with a hole in the shank just below the end of the slot for this purpose.* It's the hole the tag is tied through in the photo.* I would think your idea of a trip line secured to the fluke end of the slot and passing under the roll bar and up to the surface should work fine to back the anchor out if you ever need to.


-- Edited by Marin on Sunday 13th of June 2010 05:47:21 PM

I came across an interesting comment on the Spade anchor that is frequently compared to the Rocna. Hmmm....

We lost our yacht "Deep Blue" when the Spade Anchor failed. The 8mm bolt retaining the Fluke to the Shank of the anchor failed. Without the Fluke, we were swept into the surf line and lost.

The Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand investigated the accident, and listed one CAUSE of the accident in its findings. Mechanical FAILURE of the Spade Anchor.

I find that strange in that as I recall the Spade is the most expensive anchor out there and if not it's still very pricey. Using cap screws to hold an anchor together is, in my opinion rather questionable. The Spade has a long shank and for that reason the shank could have failed but the screw (or screws) failed so that could mean the screws could have been the weak link. Perhaps the screws were lost and replaced w inferior screws. It could easily be said thats a weak link, not controllable by the manufacturer and the product being sold to the general public would be a unsafe condition. From your text Delfin it sounds like there is only one screw used and w the potential twisting forces normally involved in anchoring that really seems nuts to me. Welds aren't bullet proof either but usually done in a controlled factory environment and one would think a safety device like an anchor would have a good weld. One last thought. The screw, or screws could have been slightly loose causing bending and fatigue of the screw metal and that would be a very weak link indeed.

Eric

Just for interest I followed up on the Spade anchor; on their site they mention that the aforementioned bolt is not load bearing, which I suppose reduces the risk of having it, although if it comes adrift it still creates problems.I also searched the Maritime New Zealand site accident reports and there was no mention of the Deep Blue or Spade anchors at least that I could find. There may be more (or less) to this story than meets the eye.

Here is the other side from the designer.* Sounds like they now provide a locknut per the recommendation of the Marine Board.* But as he says, if this is the only case, perhaps there is less to it than meets the eye.

The case of the grounding of Deep Blue is not as simple as it first seems. A New Zealand Maritime Safety Authority Accident Investigation Report investigated by Jim Lott, NARB, concluded that "the anchor failed when the bolt securing the two parts of the anchor fell out" and "that this could reasonably be attributed to the failure of the nut that secured it". What the investigator seemingly failed to consider is how this could have possibly occurred when the type of nut used is specifically designed not to come loose, and there were no forces acting on it.

Spade anchors are designed to dismantle into two pieces for easy stowage, a very popular feature. The shank is inserted into a socket on the blade and retained by a stainless steel bolt with a "Nyloc" style nut. During normal operation, there is no load on this bolt as the substantial socket assembly takes all the force. At boat shows, we often demonstrate this by removing the bolt completely and pulling the anchor as per normal operation. Even when "break-out" is simulated the shank remains inserted in the socket clearly showing that the bolt simply holds the two sections together.

"Nyloc" style nuts are used extensively to prevent accidental loosening of nuts, normally associated with high vibration situations. In the case of the Spade, there is no turning force on the bolt/nut combination and little or no vibration, "Nyloc" style nuts are used as a precautionary measure to totally eliminate any chance of the nut coming loose. "Nyloc" style nuts require tools and significant force to tighten or loosen them. If the nut was initially tight, and there were no forces acting on it to loosen it, it could not have come undone. In my opinion, it is extremely unlikely that the investigator's conclusion is correct.

There are two other possibilities that the investigator apparently fails to consider altogether..

1. The nut was never tightened properly in the first place. This is a distinct possibility as the anchor was relatively new, was purchased assembled and was not subsequently disassembled. When the Spade anchor was displayed, it is possible that the bolt was only loosely fitted, as purchasers often wish to dismantle the anchor for transport. ("Nyloc" style nuts are designed to be used only once). It is possible that the owner/skipper failed to ensure that the bolt was tight.

2. The nut, bolt and blade were removed after the grounding. Apparently no attempt was made to recover the anchor until three days after the grounding. During this time somebody could have removed the blade.

It should also be noted that the vessel was not insured.

There are a number of other peculiar facts in the case:-
a) The owner was at the top of the mast fixing the tricolor light at 2:30 am when the vessel grounded. The vessel had been at sea for 7 days having encountered rough conditions. They had anchored at 22:30 and then spent two and a half hours providing radio communications for an emergency and helicopter evacuation nearby. It is logical to assume that the crew would be tired. The investigator apparently failed to consider that this could have been a contributing factor.
b) Why was no anchor watch maintained even though all three crew were on deck?
c) Even if the anchor blade had become separated from the shank, the shank and the weight of the chain alone would have been able to hold the vessel under the weather conditions of the time. (NO wind or wind less than 10 knots)
d) The vessel was apparently anchored too close to the shore and unprotected from the onshore wind.
e) The Model 80 Spade is designed for vessels displacing up to 4.5T. Deep Blue was estimated to displace 6T.
f) The investigator concluded that the rope/chain combination was sufficient as the ratio was 3.25/1. He failed to take freeboard into account, which would reduce the ratio to approximately 2.88:1. Whilst, according to the report, 3:1 is commonly considered adequate in calm conditions for an all chain rode, this was below that and well below recommendations of a ratio of 5/1 or better 7/1 for a mixed chain + rope rode, especially if no anchor watch is to be maintained.
g) In my opinion, any combination of factors could have lead to Deep Blue dragging including the lack of adequate scope, but the failure to maintain an anchor watch was the primary cause of the grounding.

Despite doubts over the case, Spade have agreed to modify future bolts, as recommended by the investigator, to include a pin after the nut and a note advising that "Nyloc" style nuts should only be used once. (There is no need to replace the nut after each deployment, but every time the anchor is dismantled). Existing owners are advised that if they have any concerns about their nuts, that they arrange for the end of the bolt to be drilled and have a pin and new "Nyloc" style nut fitted. It is the owners' responsibility to ensure that the nut & bolt (or alternative) are in good condition, secure and suitable for the purpose. It must be emphasised that thousands of Spade Anchors have been sold since 9 years, and that no similar cases have been reported.

Alain POIRAUD (designer of the Spade and Ocane anchors)

Delfin wrote:
We lost our yacht "Deep Blue" when the Spade Anchor failed. The 8mm bolt retaining the Fluke to the Shank of the anchor failed. Without the Fluke, we were swept into the surf line and lost.

Click to expand...

That seems to be to be a design or manufacturing error.* It doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with the spade anchor concept in general.* So perhaps apples and oranges when you try to compare this experience to a Rocna, Manson Supreme, SARCA, etc.

*

Spade anchors were initially supplied without the Nylock nut. They later added them at the factory. They contacted who they could and supplied them to anchors without them. I have one, but can't remember if I put it on*or it came that way.

Tidahapah wrote:

Guys I have now sent out enquires re a new SARCA or SARCA Excel anchor.
Possibly a size 8 or 9.
Looks like they may be the goods and better the larger than smaller as long as I can fit it over my bow roller.
Will let you all know how it goes and give photos of the fit if and when I do the deed.
The 2 ploughs then become backup along with the reef picks and the spade.

Benn

-- Edited by Tidahapah on Sunday 13th of June 2010 05:14:28 PM

Click to expand...

Benn, Hi.* I don't think you could go too far wrong with either, but I only have expereince with the Super Sarca, and I am still impressed with it after about 6 yrs use.* The Sarca Excel came along recently (about 2008), and seems in the videos to set as quickly and hold as well, and certainly looks less 'agricultural' than the Super Sarca, but it's the business-like 'functional' look I kind of like about mine, and it fits my bow roller fine, and with the retaining bolt across the top of the hinged distal part of the roller, it never jumps about, even in a bucking bronco type of sea.* However, if I had a pretty boat, then the Excel would look better on it, especially one of those with a slotted pulpit the shank has to come up through, which precludes a roll-bar type of design.* My only query re the Excel is that it looks so like the Delta and Ultra anchors (and a few others I suspect), I'm surprised they got away with calling it a new design.* Do you know anything about that?

PS.* Yes, I added a hinged extra stainless roller extension which fitted nicely inside the open topped original bronze roller fitting, bolting it in using the slot the original bronze roller occupied - worked out well.* When under way, I pull her in a bit more so the shank is more or less horizontal.

*


-- Edited by Peter B on Thursday 1st of July 2010 07:13:33 AM

Peter B,Interesting thing about your SS. It has the "down Elevator" trailing edge like my XYZ. The Spade and Rocna have "up elevator" trailing edges. I see there isn't an attach hole that is in the same place as the Rocna retrieval hole but there is a handy place to put a shackle for retrieval. Does the Sarca people support tandem anchoring? Have you ever used your retrieval slot? Have you ever experienced a wind reversal and pull out that was not an instant re-set?


Eric

nomadwilly wrote:

Peter B,
Interesting thing about your SS. It has the "down Elevator" trailing edge like my XYZ. The Spade and Rocna have "up elevator" trailing edges. I see there isn't an attach hole that is in the same place as the Rocna retrieval hole but there is a handy place to put a shackle for retrieval. Does the Sarca people support tandem anchoring?
No, I have not seen them ever recommend it, and I can't imagine the need would arive very often.* As others have said, adequate weight of anchor AND chain rode are the best solution.* ie You prevent the problem before it becomes one.* However, if required in an exceptional circumstance one could shackle an extra length of chain and another anchor from the point you mention just above the fluke.
Have you ever used your retrieval slot?
Yes, I use it nearly every time I lift the anchor, as it's so easy to do, and takes all strain off the winch assembly.
Have you ever experienced a wind reversal and pull out that was not an instant re-set?
No, never, and we've anchored and swung in quite a few fairly extreme blows.* Frankly, this bogey touted by other makers lacking the slot is more theoretical than real.* The damn thing just resets so quickly it's academic.* All anchors pull out and have to reset with significant windshifts in any brisk breeze, after all.* How quickly and well it re-sets is the crunch, and that's where the Sarca is superb.* Probably the Manson and Rocna do so about as well also.


Pete B


*

Click to expand...

*

Peter,Not to sound like a smart ass but that raises the question "why do we bother setting them at all?" A long time ago I did just that thinking setting anchors was a pointless academic exercise. But now I just wonder if pulling on an anchor fast or setting them as slow as possible (and to an extreme would be not setting at all) is best. Or if "I can't pull'em out at full throttle it must be set" to "I feel a little bit of drag * *..it must be set" philosophy.
I have never seen your SARCA (other than pics). I probably would have bought one if I had found a convenient place to buy * *..don't remember any place to buy but I didn't contact the manufacturer.


Eric

Well Guys i have now made the change.
The SARCA Excel #8 is now fitted and it tucks in very nicely in my bow roller.
Now we have to wait and see how it performs.
Now I never draged anchor with my previous 75 lb plough and so with the Excel at 84 lb and supposed better holding I should be as sweet as.
Question.... If one has never draged befor how does one know if a new anchor is better, I suppose if it drags then it is not.
I must admit, previously if I knew it was going to blow more than 30/35 knots I set my tandem anchor set up. a 45 plough on 10 mts (30 ft) 1/2" chain ahead of the main anchor.
I suppose I will have to go north to my known grounds off Fraser Is and give it a good test before heading south into unknown country.

I have attached a couple of photos of the before and after set ups.

Benn

-- Edited by Tidahapah on Saturday 3rd of July 2010 03:01:05 AM

nomadwilly wrote:

"Peter,* Not to sound like a smart ass but that raises the question "why do we bother setting them at all?" A long time ago I did just that thinking setting anchors was a pointless academic exercise."
Eric_________________________________________

Eric, that is a very fair question, and one of the amazing things about this new generation of quick-setting anchors.....you hit it on the head....you don't really have to 'set' them.* The weight of the boat, either drifting back on the current, or wind pressure, or moving forward under the momentum of the boat, is sufficient.* Ok, you can tug them with a bit of reverse to set your mind at rest that it is set, but basically unnecessary.* That's one of the marvelous things about them, and where they differ most from most other makes of anchor.....I'll leave it at that.

PS.* Your new Excel looks great Benn.* I think you'll find it works well from what I've seen.
By the way, I'll be in touch re that local get-together thing.* Ted's over here now, and hopefully Allan is almost sorted out, so we are looking at late July or some time in August.* When was it you were intending to head off into the wide blue yonder...?

Click to expand...

*


-- Edited by Peter B on Saturday 3rd of July 2010 03:45:05 AM

-- Edited by Peter B on Saturday 3rd of July 2010 03:48:07 AM

Peter B
I am in Brisvagas from about the 24 th July and then across to the west to work for 5 weeks.
Home approx 7 th Sept.

Benn

Peter B,I don't think so now. We NEED to set them to find out if they are lying on a bottom that the anchor will set in. To say that Pete your bottoms must be very dependable. We have certain hard and grassy bottoms that will reject many anchors. Although it hurts to criticize someone that agrees w me * * *..I must. If all bottoms were a perfect sand box ......


Eric