Chesapeake Anchor Holding Power Test

Capthead said:

On the anchor drag subject. I thought everybody had shore based markers they used to determine position set and if you were dragging. Relying on technology alone doesn't pass the smell test for me. You can always find a rock, tree or something on shore as a mark.

Click to expand...

Of course, much of the anchoring done is in areas where 180 degree swing happens. And that time when it's raining buckets and blowing 35 kts and you really, really want an indication of whether you're dragging? I have a feeling you wouldn't be able to see the landmarks. This isn't even considering the dead of night. Or how about a strong current dragging you in a way that you don't notice while you're sleeping?

Landmarks are great. But nothing smells better to me than a good couple of electronic anchor alarms watching my position every second of the day and night with no other goal than to alarm when I've moved outside an area.

Jeffrey S said:

Landmarks are great. But nothing smells better to me than a good couple of electronic anchor alarms watching my position every second of the day and night with no other goal than to alarm when I've moved outside an area.

Click to expand...

I give you that. I didn't mean no technology help, I meant have both but use the landmarks when you can.

markpierce said:

So, an upcoming anchor without roll bar will be superior? ... fascinating.

Click to expand...

The problem a roll bar presents, no matter whose anchor it's on, is that it prevents a lot of boats from carrying it. Particularly boats with what I all the "Bayliner pulpit" which is solid pulpit with one or two slots for an anchor shank to come up through it.

An anchor company would be missing out on a pretty good-size portion of the market if their sole product would not fit what has become a fairly common type of pulpit.

Creating an anchor using some of the principles of the original anchor is very smart business sense. How much anchoring sense it makes remains to be seen.

And I doubt that Rocna or any of the other rollbar anchor manufacturers who have come out with non-rollbar anchors simply saw the rollbar off, as Eric has proposed doing on several occasions. A rollbar-less Rocna or Sarca or Manson most likely would not work very well at all because the geometry of the anchor and its action is designed to function with a rollbar.

So if Rocna does come out with a non-rollbar anchor, I suspect they will go the Anchor Right route and create a new anchor that is designed to set and hold without a rollbar, as witness the anchor Don now has on his boat.

Rocna came out with a slotted-shank rollbar anchor a number of years ago, and while I've not re-visited their site to see how it's being marketed, at the time it was specifically being targeted to fishermen who don't anchor all that long in any one spot and need to be able to get their anchor up even if it gets hung up on coral, kelp, rocks, etc. We use a trip line if we think we may be anchoring over a foul bottom, but sport fisherman aren't going to want to mess around with a trip line plus it could foul their fishing gear.

So in this application, a slotted-shank anchor--- be it a rollbar design, a claw, a spade, or whatever-- makes a lot of sense as it allows the anchor to be backed out of its set quickly and easily. As I recall, the Rocna slotted-shank anchor was being offered in relatively small sizes.

Marin said:

The problem a roll bar presents, no matter whose anchor it's on, is that it prevents a lot of boats from carrying it. Particularly boats with what I all the "Bayliner pulpit" which is solid pulpit with one or two slots for an anchor shank to come up through it.

An anchor company would be missing out on a pretty good-size portion of the market if their sole product would not fit what has become a fairly common type of pulpit.

Creating an anchor using some of the principles of the original anchor is very smart business sense. How much anchoring sense it makes remains to be seen.

And I doubt that Rocna or any of the other rollbar anchor manufacturers who have come out with non-rollbar anchors simply saw the rollbar off, as Eric has proposed doing on several occasions. A rollbar-less Rocna or Sarca or Manson most likely would not work very well at all because the geometry of the anchor and its action is designed to function with a rollbar.

So if Rocna does come out with a non-rollbar anchor, I suspect they will go the Anchor Right route and create a new anchor that is designed to set and hold without a rollbar, as witness the anchor Don now has on his boat.

Rocna came out with a slotted-shank rollbar anchor a number of years ago, and while I've not re-visited their site to see how it's being marketed, at the time it was specifically being targeted to fishermen who don't anchor all that long in any one spot and need to be able to get their anchor up even if it gets hung up on coral, kelp, rocks, etc. We use a trip line if we think we may be anchoring over a foul bottom, but sport fisherman aren't going to want to mess around with a trip line plus it could foul their fishing gear.

So in this application, a slotted-shank anchor--- be it a rollbar design, a claw, a spade, or whatever-- makes a lot of sense as it allows the anchor to be backed out of its set quickly and easily. As I recall, the Rocna slotted-shank anchor was being offered in relatively small sizes.

Click to expand...

Fitting is not the only problem with a roll bar. It also presents a obstacle to burying. This can be an advantage in many weather conditions because the roll bar presents some surface area horizontal to the direction of pull. Increase the wind and the fact the anchor will not bury as deeply offsets this advantage in terms of ultimate holding power. Further, in grassy bottoms, the roll bar can act like a backstop which when it gets loaded, puts a pivot force on the fluke so the anchor wants to move up, not down into the seabed. Finally, as shown in Brian's test the Rocna is quite happy upside down if the mud allows the roll bar to simply settle in.

All anchors are compromises.

Ok guys and gals…

Here’s a small, relatively well controlled, yet completely unofficial “personal-test” on three (3) anchors that wife and I performed in a very muddy “mud-bottom” area of a seldom traveled (approximately 20’ +/- deep x 125’ +/- wide) slough in SF Delta.

This test was using three (3) similar design (i.e. Danforth-fluke design) anchors; all of different weights. Each anchor’s end of shank was alternately affixed via heavy-duty SS snap-clip to 10’ of chain and 200’ +/- of braded nylon rode. All anchors’ flukes were as per basic Danforth design and each were approx. 33 +/- degree angle of flukes to shank. Two were old-school galvanized “Danforth” brand anchors and one was an old-school aluminum “Viking” brand anchor. No anchor newer than 1977… at least two were older. Anchor weights: Largest Danforth anchor rated at 30 lbs. / Other Danforth 20 lbs. / Viking anchor 14 lbs.

Please keep in mind it is not the exact pounds of holding power I tested for… but rather how often an anchor would grab hold at all to the point where I could not pull it loose with simply my own strength and bring it all the way back to transom of our Tollycraft tri cabin boat. Be advised I’ve been a weight lifter most of my life, and, I can pull - hard!

Set Up:

1. Nose Tollycraft boat into tules at island edge and secure with front anchor on shore
2. Line all three test anchors up on sun deck
3. Place chain/rode box on back deck… for feeding out and replacement during test retrievals

Play:

a. With runabout I take anchors (one at a time) across channel (approximately 100’ from boat = enough scope for +/- 5 to 1 angle) and carefully allow each anchor to enter water with its flukes down. Each anchor is tested three (3) times in same manner, same distance off boat, and with rode at 90 angle off transom
b. With a slow bull-back on rode by wife as anchor descends to bottom we feel confident that each anchor settles peacefully to bottom with flukes remaining in down position
c. I go back aboard our Tolly and begin to very-slowly pull anchor back to boat… hoping to experience anchor set wherein my strength was insufficient to pull anchor all the way back and again up onto our Tolly.

Outcome:

30 lb. Danforth – Skipped along bottom much of the time. Only once did it hook well enough (pulled about 1/3 of the distance back) so I had to go out with runabout and pull straight up as well as reverse drag it to get it loose. For other semi-hooks it accomplished I was able to break it free with my own pulling power while still aboard Tolly
20 lb. Danforth – Skipped along bottom much of the time. Only once did it hook even fairly well; wherein I needed to really put all my might into pulling and finally broke it loose by hand alone while still aboard our Tolly
14 lb. Viking – Skipped along bottom much of the time. Only once did it set so well (very soon once pulling began) that I had to actually back Tolly over it to pull it free… could not pull it free by hand aboard Tolly or by hand directly over it while in the runabout (wrenched my back on that one!)

Note: Every time any of the three anchors were brought back to surface there was different amounts of mud clinging onto its flukes. The one time I needed to use Tolly’s power to pull-free the 14 lb. aluminum Viking anchor there was a clump of mud so big on anchor that it held flukes and shank at their full angle of separation and was so big that only the very pointed ends of flukes could be seen. That mud clump virtually encapsulated the entire anchor – and, it was a real pain to get the anchor clean!

Conclusion:

These 33 degree angle fluke to shank anchors are not very good for getting set deeply into gooey Delta mud to provide good holding capabilities. Although once set deeply into mud holding power seems pretty good (such as once occurred to 30 lb. Danforth and once even more pronouncedly to the 14 lb. Viking) Additionally, it seems to me that Fortress FX-23 with its 45 degree shank to fluke angle capability (and larger fluke sq. inch areas) may be the answer for helping to set a fluke anchor into Delta mud…. We shall see! Another item regarding the FX-23 that greatly attracts me is its light 15 lb. weight for ease of handling.

In Summation:

I plan to eventually purchase a Fortress FX-23 and run similar testing on it in same location with same chain and rode. I hope that anchor will become our star “Delta Mud” anchor and plan to report my findings. But, don’t hold your breath while waiting… I’ve not the FX-23 anchor yet, nor close proximity time to again perform the tests with it – that said – someday I will!!

Happy Anchor Daze - Art

BruceK said:

I think I`d rather see an independent organization doing the testing, but maybe no one does, and this is the only way testing gets done. Is soft mud bottom a fair all round test for all anchors?

Click to expand...

THis I think should be the kinds of things PassageMaker magazine would do, but they have become the Motor Trend of the boating world.

Delfin said:

Fitting is not the only problem with a roll bar. It also presents a obstacle to burying.

Click to expand...

Logic would indicate that this is certainly a possibility. However, to be perfectly blunt about it, as a boater and not an anchor designer/marketer, I could care less if our anchor buries itself or stands up and does the can-can. All we care about is that it sets and that it holds.

That's it.

All the theories that folks like Eric love to spend hours bandying about in threads like this are 100 percent irrelevant to us. If our anchor sets and then holds like stink, we're done.

And so far, our anchor has done just that.

Will it do it for us forever? Don't know. Will it fail us catastrophically (nearly) like our last anchor did? Don't know. Does it like some bottoms better than others? Don't know. What will we do if the anchor does fails to perform perfectly? Don't know.

Those are all bridges we'll cross when and if we get to them. In the meantime, as far as we're concerned, we have researched, analyzed, found and purchased the world's best anchor.

Other peoples' theories and tests and hypotheses and predictions and speculations make absolutely no difference to our boat and our boating.

I can theorize with the best of them as to why we feel the Rocna's design is superior to the Sarca's and Manson's and Bruce's and whatever else. But it doesn't matter. All that matters is how a person's anchor performs for them. Until they aren't happy with it and want to do something different, all the rest of the discussion is just entertaining (or not) fluff that fools forum participants into looking at the ads, which is the real reason for the forum's existance.

THD said:

You are absolutely right, Larry. Coming here before the test and setting out the logistics of the test, accepting the comments here and following up with explanations gives the test much more credibility than coming here after the test and saying "Here are the results and here is how we did it". At the very least, Brian and Fortress get a lot of credit for being open and upfront and being willing to discuss everything in an open forum. Many more companies should try it.

I look forward to seeing the results.

Click to expand...

Yes, Thank you Brian.

This is a tough crowd and we really appreciate the efforts, no matter what the results are.

Marin said:

"...all the rest of the discussion is just entertaining (or not) fluff that fools forum participants into looking at the ads, which is the real reason for the forum's existence.

Click to expand...

Marin, if I may interject... Into as you mention "... which is the real reason for the forum's existence."

Might, should the term business be put in place of real. As I see it, the real reason for forum's [continued] existence is because we boaters get a kick out of BSing with one another and learning a thing or two while so doing.

Heck, Marin, even you came back into TF for good ol water-borne/sea-going BS and chance to confab! Without us boaters chatting like ducks in a pond with bread crusts abounding the site's ads would be very lonely!

They remain lonely by me anyway... I pay little to no attention to ads.

Cheers! - Art

Originally Posted by BruceK
I think I`d rather see an independent organization doing the testing, but maybe no one does, and this is the only way testing gets done. Is soft mud bottom a fair all round test for all anchors?


I would expect not. My guess is that most folks -- who aren't in mud-specific areas -- are much more likely to encounter all of the other various substrate combined. Corollary might be that a better all-round test would be in all those other, not just one.

Fortress Anchors said:

The Fortress anchor will be challenged in grass, weeds, and rocks, possibly more so than other anchor types as it has two large flukes which might make penetration more difficult. No debate there.

We have heard that the Fortress is sharp enough to slice through grass and weeds and penetrate into firmer holding that is below, but I suspect that this is the exception, rather than the rule.

Click to expand...

Perhaps penetration in those surfaces could improve as overall weight goes up? So an FX-23 might not penetrate a grassy bottom, but maybe an FX-55 good get a foothold...

Just musing out loud.

BTW, it occurs to me I've never yet had to use the "mud" angle for our pivoting Super Max. Nor have I had to use the other non-mud, setting; I've always just left it in the middle position and buried it.

Then again, I've not yet used the 45° angle on the FX-37, either.. nor the mud palms. OTOH, the one time our FX pulled -- as the boat did a fast 180º during a quick squall -- it may well have done much better had we used the mud setting that time. The storm wasn't predicted... sigh...

-Chris

Marin said:

Those are all bridges we'll cross when and if we get to them. In the meantime, as far as we're concerned, we have researched, analyzed, found and purchased the world's best anchor.

Click to expand...

Were that so, it would outperform other anchors. It doesn't so that can't be true. That said, you are correct that as long as you are happy with it, you're happy with it, design limitations notwithstanding.

Delfin said:

Were that so, it would outperform other anchors. It doesn't so that can't be true. That said, you are correct that as long as you are happy with it, you're happy with it, design limitations notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

It VASTLY outperforms the anchor we had before by 100 percent, given that the current anchor has never yet failed to set or hold. So as far as we are concerned, we have found the world's best anchor. And, as far as we are concerned, that's all that matters.

How other anchors perform for other boaters is of no concern to us because they're not us.

The fact that we happen to think the Rocna design is superior to the other rollbar designs--- Bugel, Manson, and Sarca being the most prominent--- is simply our opinion. I can give my reasons why I believe the Rocna design is superior, but they are still just my opinions. (And Peter Smith's )

That's why these kinds of discussions, as pleasant a time-killer as they may be, are basically pointless.

The one beneficiary could be the person who's in the market for a new anchor. This could be a first-time cruiser buyer or it could be someone like us (at the time) who is looking for something more reliable. We had never heard of the Rocna (nor any of the so-called new-generation anchors) until a post on the Grand Banks owners forum years ago brought the name to our attention.

So these kinds of discussions can at least provide some things to be aware of when trying to decide what o get.

But otherwise threads like this are identical to what I imagine goes on in car forums and such. I happen to think that anything made by GM absolutely sucks in terms of quality and longevity. (We just rented a new Chevy Impala over the weekend in Virginia and we both agree it is the worst car either one of us has ever driven. Ever.)

Other people think GM is the world's best car company.

So it is with anchors. The Fortress test in the Chesapeake mud was interesting in a sort of intellectual way, but it didn't change our minds about anything. We thought the Fortress was a terrific product before the test, and even if the Fortress had performed the worst in the muck we probably would have felt it's just as terrific a product after the test. For what we bought and use it for, the Fortress has been outstanding for us.

Same thing with the Rocna. The fact it didn't hold in one particular spot on the planet is of no concern to us. It might be if we boated and anchored in that one particular spot, but we don't.

So for us, the title of "world's best anchor" still stands.

Marin said:

It VASTLY outperforms the anchor we had before by 100 percent, given that the current anchor has never yet failed to set or hold. So as far as we are concerned, we have found the world's best anchor. And, as far as we are concerned, that's all that matters.

How other anchors perform for other boaters is of no concern to us because they're not us.

The fact that we happen to think the Rocna design is superior to the other rollbar designs--- Bugel, Manson, and Sarca being the most prominent--- is simply our opinion. I can give my reasons why I believe the Rocna design is superior, but they are still just my opinions.

That's why these kinds of discussions, as pleasant a time-killer as they may be, are basically pointless.

The one beneficiary could be the person who's in the market for a new anchor. This could be a first-time cruiser buyer or it could be someone like us (at the time) who is looking for something more reliable. We had never heard of the Rocna (nor any of the so-called new-generation anchors) until a post on the Grand Banks owners forum years ago brought the name to our attention.

So these kinds of discussions can at least provide some things to be aware of when trying to decide what o get.

But otherwise threads like this are identical to what I imagine goes on in car forums and such. I happen to think that anything made by GM absolutely sucks in terms of quality and longevity. (We just rented a new Chevy Impala over the weekend in Virginia and we both agree it is the worst car either one of us has ever driven. Ever.)

Other people think GM is the world's best car company.

So it is with anchors. The Fortress test in the Chesapeake mud was interesting in a sort of intellectual way, but it didn't change our minds about anything. We thought the Fortress was a terrific product before the test, and even if the Fortress had performed the worst in the muck we probably would have felt it's just as terrific a product after the test. For what we bought and use it for, the Fortress has been outstanding for us.

Same thing with the Rocna. The fact it didn't hold in one particular spot on the planet is of no concern to us. It might be if we boated and anchored in that one particular spot, but we don't.

So for us, the title of "world's best anchor" still stands.

Click to expand...

So, what you meant to say was that just as your daughter (or son) is the most beautiful child on earth, your Rocna is the best anchor in the world.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Rocna is a very good anchor as well. Based on the bulk of tests, probably not quite as good as the Manson and not as good as the Spade or Ultra, nor as good as the Fortress in some bottoms, but a good all around hook. And certainly better for your anchoring technique than the Bruce you had before.

Great photo Marin.

Just saying. There are at least two none roll bar spade type anchors both well tested and excellent all around performers based on practical sailors multiple tests under different bottoms and circumstances. They are the spade around before the Ronca and Manson which are roll bar cousins and the SS ultra a high end spade made in Turkey very well finished and slightly pricy. As I remember the fortress had greater holding power in soft mud and did well when it set(often difficult on harder and weed bottoms) but on overall scoring the big F did not match the spade type digging anchors. So if you anchor in soft mud and are not going to get a 180 or you put out a second anchor a Fortress is a great anchor. But as an all around primary anchor on a boat that anchors in different bottoms and shifting current and wind its not what I would or do use. Until something better comes along I vote for the spade type digger with or without roll bar. I do think everybody should have a secondary anchor and my vote goes for the Al. Fortress or Al Spade both are light come apart to store and are easily deployed from a small dinghy. My two cents on a contentious subject.

Marin

I simply do not understand your logic.

As far as I understand you bought your anchor, the first in the area or region, and from what you say the anchor was brought to your attention early on in the piece before there had been much owner feedback - but based on this limited owner's feedback, you bought and you are happy. I am sure the people who first bought the CQR or Danforth said exactly the same thing - and some are still saying it.

But how can you make such an outlandish statement that its the 'world's best anchor (even as far as you are concerned) as you have never tried many of the other anchors - it might be good - but saying its the 'world's best anchor' seems to imply you are blind to whatever else might be happening round the world and worse unwilling to accept that there might be better. In fact you do not even want to consider there might be better - as if shouting louder will drown out the groundswell of support for other designs).

Maybe I'm too harsh but being blind (or deaf) to what others are repeatedly saying and ignoring tests like those performed by Fortress does seem blinkered(?) and possibly unwise.

But you might be right (it might be, for you, the 'worlds best anchor' - you could try other anchors and still come back to the Rocna - but until you try you are denying yourself the opportunity to broaden your experiences and maybe find something superior. There is nothing unworthy of being wrong, but I do find it unworthy that you suggest you are right without trying.

manyboats said:

Marin you thought anchor tests were very meaningful as long as your favorite hook did great but now that the Fortress test and others reveal your favorite is just another anchor you say the tests are a "time killer" and "pointless".

Click to expand...

Wrong. I have always contended that anchor tests don't mean much. As you well know, there are an almost infinite number of variables in anchoring. An anchor test consists of just one set of them. Let alone whatever bias there might be among the testers. So I've never thought tests meant squat in terms of the experience a boater would have with an anchor in reality.

Tests do give one a very broad idea of an anchor's general characteristics. The Bruce/Claw tends to set well but have low holding power. We certainly found that out. But we know people with Bruce's that have had great performance from them in spite of what the "tests" say.

We chose our replacement anchor based on two things. One, how the design of the anchor works in comparison to other anchor types. As I have written in the past, the rollbar anchor is what I call a pro-active anchor by design, where other designs--- Bruce, CQR, Danforth, etc--- are what I call passive anchors, or "drag and hope" anchors.. I've described why I categorize anchors this way in the past; you can find my reasoning in the archives and I'm not going to explain it again here.

Equally important in our eventual purchase decision were the independent testimonials of boaters who used the anchor in a variety of conditions. Most of them exceeded anything we would be subjecting the anchor to, since at that time most of the Rocna users were sailors in the southwestern Pacific who anchored in exposed anchorages subjected to strong waves and winds.

So Eric, I've never paid any attention to tests and I still don't. I find the explanations of how various designs are supposed to work interesting. But tests are meaningless as far as I'm concerned, unless one is going to be anchoring under the exact same set of variables the test used.

A test showed the kind of anchor we have did poorly in a very specific set of variables. So what? We don't boat there so that's not a set of variables we are going to encounter. Besides, I like to think we're smart enough not to try to anchor over an oatmeal bottom, no matter what kind of anchor we might have.

I also use a drift boat to fly fish for steelhead in the rivers out here and in eastern Washington. Sometimes we anchor in place for awhile. A Rocna would be a worthless anchor for this kind of boating, if for no other reason that it's too awkward to stow, deploy, and retrieve in a drift boat. The bottoms of a lot of the rivers we fish in are rock. Not rocky, rock. The pro-active design of the Rocna that makes it (in my opinion) superior to the other types of cruising boat anchors on the market would be of no benefit whatsoever in these river bottoms because the very thing it's designed to do is impossible to do in that situation.

But because it won't work on a rock river bottom does not make me downgrade it for the way we use it on our cruising boat. For the cruising boat environment, we continue to feel that it is the best anchor on the market, particularly for a boater who is going to encounter a variety of bottoms.

The fact that a growing number of boaters all over the place seem to feel the same way--- we see more Rocnas on bows almost every time we go to the marina or look in the Seaview North yard--- is nice, but it's not why we feel the Rocna design is superior to the other designs out there right now.

Our opinion, of course. Others feel differently.

eyschulman said:

Just saying. There are at least two none roll bar spade type anchors both well tested and excellent all around performers based on practical sailors multiple tests under different bottoms and circumstances. They are the spade around before the Ronca and Manson which are roll bar cousins and the SS ultra a high end spade made in Turkey very well finished and slightly pricy. As I remember the fortress had greater holding power in soft mud and did well when it set(often difficult on harder and weed bottoms) but on overall scoring the big F did not match the spade type digging anchors. So if you anchor in soft mud and are not going to get a 180 or you put out a second anchor a Fortress is a great anchor. But as an all around primary anchor on a boat that anchors in different bottoms and shifting current and wind its not what I would or do use. Until something better comes along I vote for the spade type digger with or without roll bar. I do think everybody should have a secondary anchor and my vote goes for the Al. Fortress or Al Spade both are light come apart to store and are easily deployed from a small dinghy. My two cents on a contentious subject.

Click to expand...

It is contentious, and our friend Marin demonstrates why. Once someone has purchased a particular anchor it miraculously becomes the best ever, regardless of test results. Purely objectively, and based on reasonable tests for performance compared to others, the Excel is probably the best hook out there. I have an Ultra and love it. I imagine that if I had a Rocna, I would love that two, just like I loved the Claw the Ultra replaced. But again, purely objectively, hoopless anchors that dive virtually always perform better than hoop types on ethically conducted tests, and when hoop types are compared it appears the Mantus is best, with Manson second and Rocna a close third. But that is an objective analysis that will always be overcome in the mind of someone who owns a particular brand.

Djbangi said:

But how can you make such an outlandish statement that its the 'world's best anchor (even as far as you are concerned) as you have never tried many of the other anchors - it might be good - but saying its the 'world's best anchor' seems to imply you are blind to whatever else might be happening round the world and worse unwilling to accept that there might be better.

Click to expand...

I have never flown (piloted) an Airbus but I feel very comfortable saying that a Boeing is the world's best jetliner. I have a whole lot of reasons for saying this (even though it is still just a personal opinion) and I know enough about the design of the competition to have specific reasons for believing what I believe. Butt there are a lot of other people (many of them in Toulouse ) who disagree.

That's fine, but it doesn't change my conviction that a Boeing is a better piece of machinery than an Airbus.

Same thing with the Rocna. I know a lot of people on this forum don't like Peter Smith because he can be an arrogant SOB, but I'm not interested in him, I'm only interested in his design. He took a bunch of really good ideas and combined them into something I feel is very clever and effective. I think he did a better job with his design than the Sarca folks (not by much, however) and I think his design is considerably better than the Manson. I would buy a Sarca. I would never buy a Manson.

I fully acknowledge that there is no anchor outside of a deeply-buried D-8 Cat that is perfectly suited for every type of anchoring condition one will ever encounter no matter where they are on the planet. I get that.

But given the ""compromise" nature of anchors, I think the Rocna design is better suited for a wider range of variables than the rest of them. I say this based on the design, how it works, and why it works.

I know all about the Chinese mess-up with the finish and wrong metal and the attempts of Holdfast and Peter's son to avoid the issue or cover it up altogether. But that's got nothing to do with the design itself and how the design helps the anchor do what it's supposed to do. In terms of the design, I think Peter absolutely nailed it.

Does that mean nothing better will ever come along? Of course not. But for what's on the market right now, I think the Rocna design, for a general purpose power or sail cruising boat anchor, is the best one in the world. That I know of, anyway. Perhaps the Tierra de Fuegans have come up with an even better design, but if they have, I don't know about it yet.

Strictly my opinion, of course. What other people think is what other people think.

PS-- Just read Delfin's post and I agree with him completely. There is a huge "because I have it" factor in how one feels about something, be it a car or an anchor. I am no different than anyone else in that respect.

But I also feel that, based on design alone, I think the Rocna is a better one. There are individual features of the other rollbar anchors that are very good, but then they go and partly (or completely) negate that advantage by doing something not so good.

From my interpretation of the design and how it works, Peter really understood the concept's advantages and everything in his design enhances them. The others all manage to do things in their designs that, in my opinion again, partly defeat the principles behind the rollbar anchor.

But hey, we've got one, it works beautifully (so far) thanks to the simplicity and sophistication of the design, so as far as we're concerned, it's the best anchor going.

OK Marin I deleted that post. You have indeed poo pooed the anchor tests. I do recall that.

But this business of seeing more and more Rocna's on the bows of boats like more and more people are seeing the light, getting smart like you and responding to Peter Smith's hot talk got old a long time ago. I know facts won't alter your opinion at all nor will any amount of objectivity or documentation to the contrary .... so be it. You'll be the first to have an anchor on your tombstone and the last to switch to the next generation of anchors (if ever) and that's fine. You'll be old and like a boater in our boatyard that goes to Alaska every year w a normal sized Navy anchor on his bow. Swears by it. And of course the number here that "swear" by the very anchor you despise are not few.

Haha I was wonder'in if you'd ever bend like trees in the wind but it is looking more doubtful all the time. But .. my friend ther'e just anchors.

manyboats said:

You'll be the .... the last to switch to the next generation of anchors (if ever) and that's fine. .

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite. What's the "next" generation of anchors?

manyboats said:

OK Marin I deleted that post. You have indeed poo pooed the anchor tests. I do recall that.

But this business of seeing more and more Rocna's on the bows of boats like more and more people are seeing the light, getting smart like you and responding to Peter Smith's hot talk got old a long time ago. I know facts won't alter your opinion at all nor will any amount of objectivity or documentation to the contrary .... so be it. You'll be the first to have an anchor on your tombstone and the last to switch to the next generation of anchors (if ever) and that's fine. You'll be old and like a boater in our boatyard that goes to Alaska every year w a normal sized Navy anchor on his bow. Swears by it. And of course the number here that "swear" by the very anchor you despise are not few.

Haha I was wonder'in if you'd ever bend like trees in the wind but it is looking more doubtful all the time. But .. my friend ther'e just anchors.

Click to expand...

I pay pretty close attention to anchors and at least in my marina, there are more Ultras on boats than Rocnas, more Rocnas than Supremes, and more Claw/Bruce than all of the above.

Hi Marin,

So if I understand correctly you have the best anchor in the world, based on your view (note use of view - have you examined an Excel close up?) of its design characteristics, even though you have never tried the Manson Supreme and Boss, Spade, Mantus, Ultra, Anchor Right Super SARCA and SARCA Excel, XYZ, Kobra and any others I might have missed and might actually have never seen some of them in the flesh.

Maybe when you say 'best in the world' you should mention you have never tried any of the others, maybe list all the anchors you have not tried, nor seen some of them. This would put your assertions into true context - anyone then looking for a new anchor could put a realistic value on your advise and experience.

Djbangi said:

Hi Marin,

So if I understand correctly you have the best anchor in the world, based on your ...... etc.

Click to expand...

Dude, you are getting yourself all wrapped around the axle about something that, in the overall scheme of things, is less important and less interesting than the sex life of the Edwardian Earthworm.

They're anchors. They dig into the bottom and keep stuff floating up above them from drifing away. Sometimes they work good, sometimes they don't. In my opinion, it's up to the boater to use the thing with intelligence. In other words, don't anchor where the anchor won't work.

Who cares if I haven't had every anchor design gone over by the folks at MIT? Who cares if I have't actually tried every anchor type and design on the planet? I daresay nobody on this forum has. In my opinion, based on our experience and what I feel about the design, the Rocna is the best anchor out there right now. That's my opinion. Anyone who takes what I think as some sort of gospel and actually acts on my opinion without doing their own research and forming their own opinion is not firing on all cylinders.

It's a single data point. Marin thinks the Rocna is the best anchor in the world and here are his reasons why. Fine, take that and then go talk to Carl (Delfin). Get HIS opinion about what HE thinks is the best anchor. There's another data point. Then go talk to Don and see what he thinks of his big, new, shiny rocket fin from Australia. There's another data point. Read the anchor tests if you think they're worth bothering with. Talk to more people or read more independent reviews from experienced boaters.. Get more data points.

Then, make your decision abut what would work best for you based on what you've heard and read. Hopefully spiced up a bit with some common sense.

I rarely agree with Eric's views on stuff because he looks at things through a whole different set of glasses than I do. But he made a great point earlier, and that is there are commercial fisherman who anchor up the coast using an anchor design that was probably considered old-fashioned by the Egyptians when they were barging big rocks down the Nile, and they work fine and have for decades.

Why? I bet it's partly because their anchors are relatively huge and heavy. But mostly because they've learned, either through direct experience or being told by someone who has it, that you don't anchor there, there and, there, but there's good anchoring here, here, and here.

I place, way, WAY more stock in where it makes sense to anchor than what kind of anchor is on the bow of our boat.

The fact we have the best anchor in the world on the bow of our boat is just a bonus.

And that, folks, is that. This render computer I've been waiting to finish has just finished, and I have a plane to catch for Europe in the morning. As Art wrote awhile back, it's certainly been entertaining, talking about bent pieces of metal as though they're actually important. But on my "things to ponder" list, anchors just fell off the bottom of it. But I'll try to remember to hoist a glass of champagne in Reims, Fr. to the design genius of Peter Smith. Without him, this forum would be a dull place indeed.

Marin said:

I rarely agree with Eric's views on stuff because he looks at things through a whole different set of glasses than I do. But he made a great point earlier, and that is there are commercial fisherman who anchor up the coast using an anchor design that was probably considered old-fashioned by the Egyptians when they were barging big rocks down the Nile, and they work fine and have for decades.

Why? I bet it's partly because their anchors are relatively huge and heavy. But mostly because they've learned, either through direct experience or being told by someone who has it, that you don't anchor there, there and, there, but there's good anchoring here, here, and here.

I place, way, WAY more stock in where it makes sense to anchor than what kind of anchor is on the bow of our boat.

Click to expand...

And which is precisely the same reason why most people are happy with the anchor they have. In my marina the majority still have CQR/Ploughs. I gave mine away for a Sarca.

Call it prudent choice of when and where to anchor - whatever - we try to avoid extreme conditions which might expose our anchor to its limits.

Fortress Anchors said:

The "bottom" line is that no single anchor performs exceptionally well in all bottom conditions....and in those bottom conditions where it does not perform well.....will it be good enough to keep the boat safe and secure during adverse, unpredicted events?

The Fortress anchor will be challenged in grass, weeds, and rocks, possibly more so than other anchor types as it has two large flukes which might make penetration more difficult. No debate there.

We have heard that the Fortress is sharp enough to slice through grass and weeds and penetrate into firmer holding that is below, but I suspect that this is the exception, rather than the rule.


During the recent soft mud tests, we found a common bottom that was a challenge for ALL anchors, particularly those which are not specifically designed for this type of soil.

We saw several performances, some of which were from the highly-touted recent anchor designs, that were so shocking and disturbing that a comment was made among witnesses that these anchors should be sold with a warning label when used in soft mud.

Take from this testing what information you find helpful, or discard it as useless, its obviously your choice.


The ultimate goal is boater safety, and if that safety can be achieved using Brand X, Y, or Z anchors, which meet and exceed the boater's holding power needs in the wind and bottom conditions where they regularly anchor, then that's great.

Awareness and education are part of the keys to that safety, whether it be proper scope or anchoring techniques, or using the right anchor that is optimal for the specific bottom and wind conditions which the boater is likely to encounter.

And if we at Fortress can assist with this awareness and education, then great, once again, and maybe also sell a few anchors along the way as well, which help keep boaters safe and having fun on the water, then that's a bonus.

Click to expand...

Brian,

I might be guilty of have sidetracked your thread, humblest apologies.

But back on track

I find it refreshing you suggest a possible weakness, sorry might be challenged, in a Fortress - too much to ask that other anchor makers are equally candid? But I'm not sure any anchor, unless its a monster is not equally challenged in weed or grass, other than fisherman's or marsh (hands up anyone with an anchor that they are confident to use in weed or grass).

We, and in other parts of the world, are discouraged from anchoring in grass anyway - destroys habitat (apparently) so not always an issue.

Your focus on safety is also refreshing (even if its also good marketing).

But your first sentence is the key:


The "bottom" line is that no single anchor performs exceptionally well in all bottom conditions....and in those bottom conditions where it does not perform well.....will it be good enough to keep the boat safe and secure during adverse, unpredicted events?


If you have one lesson from the Chesapeake tests - your sentence sums it up (but I think there are a number of lessons in there).

Djbangi said:

I find it refreshing you suggest a possible weakness, sorry might be challenged, in a Fortress - too much to ask that other anchor makers are equally candid?

Click to expand...

Djbangi, considering the importance of an anchor aboard a boat as a vital piece of safety equipment, I would expect so.

Some of the surprise at the testing turned to anger, as it was clear that several of the anchors, including one specific roll bar model, would not dependably set in soft mud and when they did, the holding power generated was nominal and not enough to hold the boat for which they are recommended in anything but light winds.

This is obviously a potential safety hazard for an unsuspecting boater/user, and should another anchor manufacturer be the one responsible for alerting them to this?

Brian

Might I just point out here…in defence of the roll-bar types that might not have done so well in the very soft mud on this test, and based on experience with one of these types, albeit not one actually tested in Brian's program, that the conditions of the test as performed, whilst valid, might well have not accurately replicated the sort of conditions actually in effect if one was using one of these anchors in a real life anchoring situation.

By this I refer to the fact that these anchors set normally so well, so quickly, and with such minimal deliberate setting power needed, that we generally tend to just drop them, lay out the scope, then let them sit and set by just the drag on the vessel, with maybe a quick gentle reverse tap, as it were, to check the set before settling down for the night.

If in soft mud, this would generally allow the anchor by its own weight, and slight movement, to roll on its side and engage the fluke in the bottom, and subsequently dig in to a better depth over this time. By contrast, in this test of Brian's, the almost immediate application of a dragging force to the anchor, which I am not criticising in itself, as it was uniformly applied to them all, but considering the somewhat unique setting characteristic of these roll-bar types, probably caused them to set less well they they would in normal use. This is because the almost immediate drag in soft mud might well move the anchor sufficiently fast that the roll-bar instead of being able to roll the fluke over onto its side as it normally does, could well grab enough mud to clog and weight the bar, thus preventing the roll of the fluke to the bottom.

I guess my point is, that although their failure caused adverse comment by some at the test, as Brian has mentioned, in all fairness, they were probably not as used to the rather unique setting requirements of this type as regular owner users are, and over-interpreted the results negatively, and with justification going by the figures, but if set how they are normally set in actual usage, they would have performed better. This same issue might well apply to other designs as well in a one type of test situation.

I guess it just illustrates perfectly the reservations several have already expressed re the limitations of any anchor testing as such, as compared to the real world use.

That was one test with one set of conditions. It is what it is, and it looked like it was conducted fairly. The Chesapeake mud is a real situation around here as it is one of the largest estuaries in the world. As has been said no one anchor is always best, but under these conditions the Fortress/Danforth style seem to work best. Having anchored in many areas of the Bay, I think it's true.

If I upgrade my Danforth it will be to a Fortress. Neither would be my primary anchor, but would be for use when similar type conditions occur. If the EX-CEL holds well under those circumstances, they will always remain as backups.

Our testing was not "real world" in the sense that when an anchor does not immediately set, and within a relatively short distance, then the anchor is usually picked up and then it is deployed in a new location.

What we did was deploy the anchor, let out a 5:1 scope + 100 feet (about 33 m), which resulted in about an 8.3:1 scope to start, and then the Dynamic Positioning System aboard the Rachel Carson was set to "hover" at that specific location.

We then pulled back the 100 feet (33 m) to a 5:1 scope at a very slow rate of 10 feet (3 m) per minute, for a full 10 minutes, so each anchor was given 100 feet (33 m) and 10 minutes to engage the bottom and develop resistance.

I certainly believe that this testing methodology was long and slow enough to allow each anchor to perform well, or not.

Also, in the "real world" a specific scope is usually let out (ex. 5:1), and then the boat moves under power, or with the wind or tide to set the anchor.

When we initially tried this same technique during our preliminary testing, we simply found that the boat was too big, the anchors too small, and the bottom too soft to test this way and achieve repeatable, controlled pulls.


Otherwise, I don't think that the testing was "un-realworldly," as again, we used a long scope to set and pull the anchors, and we pulled them at a rate of speed that was certainly slow enough to allow them to engage the bottom.

I might even venture to go out on a limb and say that we were kinder and gentler to the anchors in this testing methodology than what they would typically encounter in the "real world," which might involve shorter scopes and faster pull speeds.....so during our testing, they should have performed optimally, at their best capability.

Brian