Supreme Wack Job
- Thread starter Nomad Willy
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
OP
OP
Nomad Willy
Guru
Marin I don't think there's such a thing as a roll bar anchor.
There's scoop anchors and plow anchors and several to many other types. Your Rocna and my Supreme (past tense) are scoop anchors w a roll bar attachment. Roll bars are just an accessory to aid the anchor in righting itself. The roll bar is just an aid for setting performance. But when you say "roll bar anchor" we'll know what you're talking about.
Marty please tell us your experiences w the Kedge anchor. Probably very few here have any knowledge regarding their performance.
There's scoop anchors and plow anchors and several to many other types. Your Rocna and my Supreme (past tense) are scoop anchors w a roll bar attachment. Roll bars are just an accessory to aid the anchor in righting itself. The roll bar is just an aid for setting performance. But when you say "roll bar anchor" we'll know what you're talking about.
Marty please tell us your experiences w the Kedge anchor. Probably very few here have any knowledge regarding their performance.
Not sure I follow your reasoning. Rollbar anchors are anchors that have a roll bar as an integral part of the anchor. The fluke can be whatever shape the designer chose but the unique feature of the anchor is the rollbar. Hence the generic name of rollbar anchor.
An airplane is an airplane but when you put floats on it it's called a floatplane. Not "an airplane with accessory floats mounted on the bottom."
Same thing with the rollbar anchor I think.
That or the boat is moved from one region to another. Our boat spent its whole life in San Francisco Bay until we bought it and trucked it north. The boat had a pair of big Danforth knock-offs on it (bow and stern). This made sense as it's my understanding that the bay and delta and river where from PO photos our boat apparently spent much of its time have primarily mud bottoms and the Danforth type has a great reputation for holding in mud.
Up here there is a pretty wide variety of bottoms and a Danforth type is not very popular. So we changed to what a huge number of boaters have here and that is a Bruce.
A few years later after multiple annoying "failures" and one very serious one we went in search of a better anchor and did indeed "upgrade."
OP
OP
Nomad Willy
Guru
OK Marin ....
The roll bar does kinda stick out.
Something I thought about today is that the Supreme is better suited to being a roll bar anchor as it's fluke is so rounded. It rolls around on it's fluke bottom really well ... being so round. The Rocna w it's two flat surfaces on the fluke bottom would seem to not want to roll as well. Never heard of anybody having any trouble getting it to set though. It's odd that the Supreme has a more involved and more expensive to build methods but the Rocna has the higher price.
Anyway I wonder if the upper part of the slotted shank on the Supreme could be cut off. I'll bet the small amount of strength loss wouldn't be noticed unless really extreme conditions were encountered and that's very unlikely in the Puget Sound area. And if it failed I'm guessing the shank would just bend and all would probably not be lost. But then I could just get ahead of the game, have a shank fabed that pleases me and have it welded on. Perhaps that would be mod #7.
The roll bar does kinda stick out.
Something I thought about today is that the Supreme is better suited to being a roll bar anchor as it's fluke is so rounded. It rolls around on it's fluke bottom really well ... being so round. The Rocna w it's two flat surfaces on the fluke bottom would seem to not want to roll as well. Never heard of anybody having any trouble getting it to set though. It's odd that the Supreme has a more involved and more expensive to build methods but the Rocna has the higher price.
Anyway I wonder if the upper part of the slotted shank on the Supreme could be cut off. I'll bet the small amount of strength loss wouldn't be noticed unless really extreme conditions were encountered and that's very unlikely in the Puget Sound area. And if it failed I'm guessing the shank would just bend and all would probably not be lost. But then I could just get ahead of the game, have a shank fabed that pleases me and have it welded on. Perhaps that would be mod #7.
Eric-- When we deploy an anchor we don't just let it carefully down onto the seabed and then wait motionless to see what will happen. We start easing back, paying out rode and also pullng on the anchor. The genius of the rollbar design is that no matter how it lands on the bottom, the moment you start to pull on it the design forces it to immediatlely lay over on its side with the fluke in a position to slice down into the bottom like a knife blade.
So it makes no difference whether the fluke is more rounded or less rounded or concave or convex. What's important is that pullng on the end of the shank makes the anchor roll onto its side from whatever position it ended up in when it first hit the bottom.
FWIW a Rocna fluke is not a wedge of two flat pieces of metal. There is a curve to the fluke.
So it makes no difference whether the fluke is more rounded or less rounded or concave or convex. What's important is that pullng on the end of the shank makes the anchor roll onto its side from whatever position it ended up in when it first hit the bottom.
FWIW a Rocna fluke is not a wedge of two flat pieces of metal. There is a curve to the fluke.
Last edited:
Eric--- Well, that's not as true a statement as I had thought it was. You'd think I'd know the shape of our own anchor fairly well by now, but in fact your description is more accurate.
The two sections of the fluke do not make a hard angle in the lower section of the fluke (pointy end), but it's not near as rounded as I was envisioning in my head.
I guess it what's you'd call a "soft angle."
The first photo is one I took of our installation. I took it as a record of the new, taller pulpit bail or keeper we made to allow the anchor to lie down more in the pulpit channel, not as an illustration of the anchor itself. But is sort of gives an idea of the "soft angle" of the lower part of the fluke.
The second photo I found on the web and while it shows this "softer angle" down near the point it also confirms your description of the fluke as a pair of flat planes joined into a V.
The anchor still ends up on its side in the proper setting position the moment you pull on the shank, but I wanted to acknowledge your more accurate description of the fluke shape.
Attachments
OP
OP
Nomad Willy
Guru
Yes and thank you Marin.
I notice the roll bar on the Rocna is over 180 degrees around. Perhaps this makes up for the difference in roundness. Just a thought.
The way I deploy my anchors I'll bet I get a set every time. The only way it can drag inverted is to set it up vertically and tip it over backwards. Then I need to hold the shank up at about 45 degrees to make it drag upside down. Can't imagine how that could happen while actually anchoring.
I remember someone else saying they saw another Supreme w the RB cut off. But they left about 2" and I think that was a mistake. Of course there's about an inch left on mine because of the skids on the outboard edges of the fluke .. to keep the back of the fluke high to force the tip down. But this 1" of the roll bar is below the fluke on the supreme kinda like the Rocna. I have other ways of making the CG even lower. As long as the anchor is laying down I think it should work very well. Gotta admit some chain may or probably help there.
I notice the roll bar on the Rocna is over 180 degrees around. Perhaps this makes up for the difference in roundness. Just a thought.
The way I deploy my anchors I'll bet I get a set every time. The only way it can drag inverted is to set it up vertically and tip it over backwards. Then I need to hold the shank up at about 45 degrees to make it drag upside down. Can't imagine how that could happen while actually anchoring.
I remember someone else saying they saw another Supreme w the RB cut off. But they left about 2" and I think that was a mistake. Of course there's about an inch left on mine because of the skids on the outboard edges of the fluke .. to keep the back of the fluke high to force the tip down. But this 1" of the roll bar is below the fluke on the supreme kinda like the Rocna. I have other ways of making the CG even lower. As long as the anchor is laying down I think it should work very well. Gotta admit some chain may or probably help there.
Last edited:
Eric--- I think if there is any flaw in your cut-down anchor theory it's that the anchor no longer has the geometry to lie on its side with the fluke at more or less 90 degrees (sideways) to the bottom. Which means the fluke will never be positioned to pivot like a knife blade down into the bottom, thus cutting through weed, crusty surfaces, and so on. Instead your anchor is now essentially a spade anchor and will depend on the tip biting into the surface and then digging in as it's dragged along.
Not that this doesn't work, of course. But to me, the advantage the rollbar anchor has is, because it always starts its set from the same position--- it's geometry gives it no choice--- the setting action is designed to take maximum advantage of that position.
The result is that, by almost all user reports, videos, etc. the rollbar anchors slice down in, pivot, and come to a stop within not much more forward movement than the length of the anchor.
Which is why I've always referred to the rollbar anchors as pro-active anchors. As opposed to the other types which I call drop-drag-and-hope anchors because that's in essence what you do. The anchor lands on the bottom however it lands, and then you start dragging it along in the hope that the fluke tip or the tips of at least one of the flukes on a multiple-fluke anchor will catch on the bottom hard enough to dig the fluke(s) in and stop the anchor.
Centuries of using this process to set an anchor proves that this method works the vast majority of the time. But we've dragged our Bruce along the bottom far enough that we ran out of room and had to pick up, move back up and try again, and I'm sure a lot of people here have experienced the same thing with their anchors on occasion.
Never say never, of course, but we've never yet had to do that with our rollbar anchor.
So it will be very interesting to hear how your ex-rollbar-turned-spade anchor works. My guess is it will dig in at some point almost all the time. Whether or not it performs more consistently or quickly than a true spade remains to be seen.
Not that this doesn't work, of course. But to me, the advantage the rollbar anchor has is, because it always starts its set from the same position--- it's geometry gives it no choice--- the setting action is designed to take maximum advantage of that position.
The result is that, by almost all user reports, videos, etc. the rollbar anchors slice down in, pivot, and come to a stop within not much more forward movement than the length of the anchor.
Which is why I've always referred to the rollbar anchors as pro-active anchors. As opposed to the other types which I call drop-drag-and-hope anchors because that's in essence what you do. The anchor lands on the bottom however it lands, and then you start dragging it along in the hope that the fluke tip or the tips of at least one of the flukes on a multiple-fluke anchor will catch on the bottom hard enough to dig the fluke(s) in and stop the anchor.
Centuries of using this process to set an anchor proves that this method works the vast majority of the time. But we've dragged our Bruce along the bottom far enough that we ran out of room and had to pick up, move back up and try again, and I'm sure a lot of people here have experienced the same thing with their anchors on occasion.
Never say never, of course, but we've never yet had to do that with our rollbar anchor.
So it will be very interesting to hear how your ex-rollbar-turned-spade anchor works. My guess is it will dig in at some point almost all the time. Whether or not it performs more consistently or quickly than a true spade remains to be seen.
Last edited:
psneeld
Guru
Plus not one bit of proof that roll bar are any kind of detriment.
Maybe this experiment will show something....but without even tighter controls than the Fortress test...it will still leave more questions than answers most likely.
Maybe this experiment will show something....but without even tighter controls than the Fortress test...it will still leave more questions than answers most likely.
sunchaser
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 10,195
- Location
- usa
- Vessel Name
- sunchaser V
- Vessel Make
- DeFever 48 (sold)
Posts 24 and 28 by Scott and Ed pretty well match my thinking. New boats go with "whatever" is selling via the magazines with pulpits and hawse holes are so designed. It would be a pain for me to go to a new design as the roller assembly and offset from the hull was designed for a Bruce that seems to be doing fine.
With a very low population (less than 1% ?) of trawler owners posting on this site's anchor discussions it would seem there are many happy campers successfully using what they have.
With a very low population (less than 1% ?) of trawler owners posting on this site's anchor discussions it would seem there are many happy campers successfully using what they have.
Probably WAY less than 1%, actually. The only people interested in the subject are those who just are, like Eric, and people who've had problems with a particular type of anchor, like me.
Based on just my own totally unscientific observation I would venture to say that less than 1% of all "trawler" owners, which these days encompasses anyone with a boat that has one or more engines and no sail rig, ever anchor out at all. As opposed to sailboat owners who tend to anchor out a lot.
So I would hazard that the interest in anchor types in the "trawler" segment as a whole is almost nil.
Nevertheless, people who are interested seem to be very interested for whatever reasons. Hence the endless discussions on the subject.
OP
OP
Nomad Willy
Guru
The way I got involved in this is because of my boat size. If I have a very high performance anchor I can skip the expensive winch, heavy chain and the "hockles" problems ect. So that's why I seem to be in the re-inventing the wheel mode. I have been actually. But now that I find 1/4" chain is big/heavy enough for my boat (previously I thought 5/16" would be required) I view a chain rode (all or half) as more of a nuisance than a "must be avoided" issue.
So if I had a 35' boat (or bigger) I could be in Scott and Ed's camp ... but I don't. My Willard came w a 13lb Danny and I've used it 6 or 7 times. But I don't reach for Danny when the forecast is for 40mph winds or more. And since I have the easy option of attaching any of my 5 to 7 anchors on the boat every time I anchor my options are greater. I'm not stuck w one "do everything" anchor .. that of course exists only to a degree. See the Fortress test. And I can adopt Ed and Scott's camp more easily now that I'm out of Alaska and will be in crowded anchorages. Too many people.
Marin out of the water my Supreme is very prone to "assume the position" on it's side as before. However I can force it to go up-side down in a certain way that I'm quite sure will not happen while anchoring.
I think your "pro-active" notions re the Rocna as being unique is flawed. Not wrong but since that feature is basically universal it dosn't hold much sand, mud or whatever. All anchors are designed to assume the setting position. Look at you're favorite .. the Claw. It's clearly designed to not sit up-side down. It's "pro-actively" designed to set on it's side just like many other anchors. Look at the Danforths. Designed clearly to pro-actively assume a position flat on the bottom. Look at the CQR. That hinge has a "pro-active" purpose. And any ballast weight in any anchor is "pro-active" in the manner that you speak of. As a modern Scoop Anchor the only thing unique about the Rocna is it's roll bar and lack of ballast. But that's not very unique in this day. And in the obvious way that the Claw is a marvelous design the roll bar equipped Scoop Anchors are a failure. The existence of the Excel, Vulcan and Boss are probably proof that that is correct. So despite all the hoopla in the marketplace the better mouse trap is still elusive. When many were saying the Rocna and it's brothers were finally the perfect anchor I was saying better anchors will soon come along.
PS I don't think "Spade" is an anchor type but a brand name. I think the proper name is "scoop". I think Spade may have created the scoop type via the designer's research of convex/concave efficiency. But did the Max anchor come before that? It's just a name so I'm open to whatever.
So if I had a 35' boat (or bigger) I could be in Scott and Ed's camp ... but I don't. My Willard came w a 13lb Danny and I've used it 6 or 7 times. But I don't reach for Danny when the forecast is for 40mph winds or more. And since I have the easy option of attaching any of my 5 to 7 anchors on the boat every time I anchor my options are greater. I'm not stuck w one "do everything" anchor .. that of course exists only to a degree. See the Fortress test. And I can adopt Ed and Scott's camp more easily now that I'm out of Alaska and will be in crowded anchorages. Too many people.
Marin out of the water my Supreme is very prone to "assume the position" on it's side as before. However I can force it to go up-side down in a certain way that I'm quite sure will not happen while anchoring.
I think your "pro-active" notions re the Rocna as being unique is flawed. Not wrong but since that feature is basically universal it dosn't hold much sand, mud or whatever. All anchors are designed to assume the setting position. Look at you're favorite .. the Claw. It's clearly designed to not sit up-side down. It's "pro-actively" designed to set on it's side just like many other anchors. Look at the Danforths. Designed clearly to pro-actively assume a position flat on the bottom. Look at the CQR. That hinge has a "pro-active" purpose. And any ballast weight in any anchor is "pro-active" in the manner that you speak of. As a modern Scoop Anchor the only thing unique about the Rocna is it's roll bar and lack of ballast. But that's not very unique in this day. And in the obvious way that the Claw is a marvelous design the roll bar equipped Scoop Anchors are a failure. The existence of the Excel, Vulcan and Boss are probably proof that that is correct. So despite all the hoopla in the marketplace the better mouse trap is still elusive. When many were saying the Rocna and it's brothers were finally the perfect anchor I was saying better anchors will soon come along.
PS I don't think "Spade" is an anchor type but a brand name. I think the proper name is "scoop". I think Spade may have created the scoop type via the designer's research of convex/concave efficiency. But did the Max anchor come before that? It's just a name so I'm open to whatever.
Last edited:
There is "side" and there is "side." Your anchor will tip too far over on its side now to rest on the shank, which will put the fluke farther over than 90 degrees to the bottom. This means the fluke will face more resistance trying to knife down into the bottom at an angle than if it was sitting at roughly 90 degrees, put and held there by the rollbar.
A lot of thought went into the design of the rollbar anchor. It's not just a happy accident that they look that way or function the way that they do. Things like resistance to penetrating a bottom, achieving maximum leverage, etc. were considerations taken into account as the designs evolved.
Somebody--- I don't know who other than it wasn't Peter--- figured out that if an anchor fluke of x-shape could be made to slice cleanly sideways down into a bottom like a knife and then rotate under pressure to present the full face to resist the pull, this would result in a fast and reliably setting anchor with great holding. The challenge was then to figure out how to make sure the fluke always ended up in the optimum position at the optimum angle. Hence the rollbar.
Remove the rollbar and you remove the design element that ensures the rest of the process will work. What you have left is a drop-drag-and-hope anchor like all the rest of them. Maybe it will land on its side at a less-than-optimum angle, maybe it won't. But it won't ever end up on its side at the optimum angle because the component of the anchor that ensures that it will all the time, every time, has been removed.
So now all you have is a spade anchor that may not work as well as an actual spade anchor because Manson designed it to be a rollbar anchor, not a spade anchor.
I've never heard spade-type anchors referred to as "scoop" anchors. While there is a brand name "Spade," the anchors of this type are called that because they all look like........ spades.
Brooksie
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,310
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Island Seeker
- Vessel Make
- Willard 36 Sedan
Maybe this has been mentioned but: when the anchor falls over on it's back, such as during a tide/wind change, it will partially dig in (upside down) and not roll over to it's "plow" side. This would diminish it's holding power greatly IMHO.
On a 3 year sail from Cape Cod to Trinidad and back, anchoring all the time, never tied up, the Danforth Hi-Tinsel on a nylon rode w/ 10' chain, only let us down once.
On a 3 year sail from Cape Cod to Trinidad and back, anchoring all the time, never tied up, the Danforth Hi-Tinsel on a nylon rode w/ 10' chain, only let us down once.
BruceK
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 13,347
- Vessel Name
- Sojourn
- Vessel Make
- Integrity 386
Eric, quit modifying other people`s designs, design your own anchor. We could even hold a naming competition.
Vashon_Trawler
Guru
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2013
- Messages
- 598
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- M/V Sherpa
- Vessel Make
- 24' Vashon Diesel Cruiser
Hand over hand job here! Keeps me fit!
My primary anchor is a 22 pound claw with approximately 150' of rhode (combination nylon and chain). Yes, I toss it from the bow and align it with the anchor roller. It is tied to a huge stainless steel Sampson post on the bow (probably could pick my boat up from it).
My claw has always set well in sand, weeds, and mud. Sherpa's back-up is an old reliable Danforth. I typically do not anchor deeper than 15'-20'.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Nomad Willy
Guru
Bruce,
I've been waiting for somebody to say that.
Naw .. I'm just an old man messing around. The only thing serious about it is the time I spend thinking about anchors. I have no intentions of selling anything or taking out patents.
Vashon Trawler I have a 22lb Claw also. Bought it when we moved to Alaska in 06. I use it from time to time as a casual anchor and as a rock anchor. I thought I'd see a lot of Rocky bottoms in Alaska but it's been mostly mud for me. The "22" has worked fine for me. Paid $85 for it in Craig Alaska.
Brooksie your post above would be more interesting if it declared what anchor you were speaking about. I'm going to assume you were talking about the Supreme following posts by Marin and myself. I'm thinking the Supreme wouldn't "fall over on it's back" because it wouldn't get vertical in the first place. In anchoring it's very unlikely to get the Supreme verticle but if it does .. being pulled backwards will make the Supreme turn turtle and it would be difficult to right it if the rode was left low to the bottom. But if it's picked up and put back on the bottom it's very unlikely to invert. And with 180 degree wind/current reversals the shank won't get pulled up and turning turtle would be basically impossible ... IMO.
I've been waiting for somebody to say that.
Naw .. I'm just an old man messing around. The only thing serious about it is the time I spend thinking about anchors. I have no intentions of selling anything or taking out patents.
Vashon Trawler I have a 22lb Claw also. Bought it when we moved to Alaska in 06. I use it from time to time as a casual anchor and as a rock anchor. I thought I'd see a lot of Rocky bottoms in Alaska but it's been mostly mud for me. The "22" has worked fine for me. Paid $85 for it in Craig Alaska.
Brooksie your post above would be more interesting if it declared what anchor you were speaking about. I'm going to assume you were talking about the Supreme following posts by Marin and myself. I'm thinking the Supreme wouldn't "fall over on it's back" because it wouldn't get vertical in the first place. In anchoring it's very unlikely to get the Supreme verticle but if it does .. being pulled backwards will make the Supreme turn turtle and it would be difficult to right it if the rode was left low to the bottom. But if it's picked up and put back on the bottom it's very unlikely to invert. And with 180 degree wind/current reversals the shank won't get pulled up and turning turtle would be basically impossible ... IMO.
Last edited:
BruceK
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 13,347
- Vessel Name
- Sojourn
- Vessel Make
- Integrity 386
See! An Anchor Thread can be nice!
Eric-was on Fisheries Supply this past Monday and noticed the same thing you did re the Rocnas. Also saw that big SS sucker, sitting on its business end, the shank was about 4 feet high! Must have weighed close to 500 lbs. Also looked at a Vulcan but the business end looked like an old metal tractor seat that had been pounded to a point.
OP
OP
Nomad Willy
Guru
THD,
There were many big SS suckers when I was there. Must have sold a bunch. I went there to see the new Spades. Nothing.
Bruce,
Are jokes considered to be on topic?
hmason,
Soon the roll bar anchors couldn't stand up.
There were many big SS suckers when I was there. Must have sold a bunch. I went there to see the new Spades. Nothing.
Bruce,
Are jokes considered to be on topic?
hmason,
Soon the roll bar anchors couldn't stand up.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Nomad Willy
Guru
I ground away on the tip of the fluke reducing the heart shaped tip down to only about 25% of the stock fluke.
Also I found a bronze shackle that when installed in the slot would slide down the slot freely if pulled up but was too small to swing down and get past the bulge permitting the shackle to run fwd under the shank. I then found a steel shackle small enough to do the same. So a reversing of the rode from a wind or current will keep the rode pulling on the usual attach end of the shank .. unless the rode (chain) was to pull up .. then the shackle would run down the slot to the far end of the anchor to pull up and retrieve a stuck anchor. But as long as the chain remains laying on the bottom the rode should pull on the end of the shank like non slotted anchors. So the perceived danger of the slotted Manson Supreme becoming dislodged from the shackle running down the slot is probably unwarranted. But you've got to have a shackle too small to swing down and run aft.
In my picture you can't get the shackle to go from right to left.
Also I found a bronze shackle that when installed in the slot would slide down the slot freely if pulled up but was too small to swing down and get past the bulge permitting the shackle to run fwd under the shank. I then found a steel shackle small enough to do the same. So a reversing of the rode from a wind or current will keep the rode pulling on the usual attach end of the shank .. unless the rode (chain) was to pull up .. then the shackle would run down the slot to the far end of the anchor to pull up and retrieve a stuck anchor. But as long as the chain remains laying on the bottom the rode should pull on the end of the shank like non slotted anchors. So the perceived danger of the slotted Manson Supreme becoming dislodged from the shackle running down the slot is probably unwarranted. But you've got to have a shackle too small to swing down and run aft.
In my picture you can't get the shackle to go from right to left.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 10,104
- Location
- Australia
- Vessel Name
- Now boatless - sold 6/2018
- Vessel Make
- Had a Clipper (CHB) 34
Eric, I agree with your reasoning, but think it is highly unlikely to occur anyway, even with a deeper U in the shackle. The way these anchors set, the shank is always on the bottom, so a reverse run back up the slot would not occur, as even with your love of short scope, before the end of the shank has been lifted clear of the bottom, to do that there would have to be pull on the chain, which would then preclude the shackle inverting and being dragged under the shank instead of along the upper surface.
But, hey...I'm dying to hear how this bar-less roll-bar Supreme works out. When do you think you'll get a chance to try it..?
But, hey...I'm dying to hear how this bar-less roll-bar Supreme works out. When do you think you'll get a chance to try it..?
OP
OP
Nomad Willy
Guru
Hi Peter,
Probably about a month. Getting the boat ready for a Willard Rendezvous in about two weeks so we're painting ect. And we're doing general re-fit stuff too for getting under way.
Re the anchor Manson must think the same as I've heard nothing about being sure to use small shackles or a substitute for that. With the Supreme the hole below the slot is there and I think most people think "Manson put that there to insure the anchor won't trip itself when veering". And that of course implies strongly that it will happen. Marin and many others thought using the slot was inviting almost certain disaster. So the reason for my post was mostly for members that have the Supreme and would like to have the benefits of the slot but are nervous about a tripout. Several of Nolex's pics showed anchors set and buried a bit. I would think the shank would be the last thing down but in his pics the end of the shank was about as far into the bottom as the fluke. A buried shank would make it more likely for the shackle to start down the slot .. do you think? Perhaps I should remove my post? My anchor test that tested veering is a 2001 test and has no roll bar or slotted anchors in the test.
I could test it myself in a way. Every time I anchored and wound up 180 degrees from the way it was set I could back down on it. If it was set in the bottom and immediately offered great resistance I could assume it rotated submerged or immediately set again. If the anchor pulled out promptly one could assume the shackle went down the slot and was ready to do the trip line thing.
You have a slotted anchor and a lot of experience w it .. what think?
Probably about a month. Getting the boat ready for a Willard Rendezvous in about two weeks so we're painting ect. And we're doing general re-fit stuff too for getting under way.
Re the anchor Manson must think the same as I've heard nothing about being sure to use small shackles or a substitute for that. With the Supreme the hole below the slot is there and I think most people think "Manson put that there to insure the anchor won't trip itself when veering". And that of course implies strongly that it will happen. Marin and many others thought using the slot was inviting almost certain disaster. So the reason for my post was mostly for members that have the Supreme and would like to have the benefits of the slot but are nervous about a tripout. Several of Nolex's pics showed anchors set and buried a bit. I would think the shank would be the last thing down but in his pics the end of the shank was about as far into the bottom as the fluke. A buried shank would make it more likely for the shackle to start down the slot .. do you think? Perhaps I should remove my post? My anchor test that tested veering is a 2001 test and has no roll bar or slotted anchors in the test.
I could test it myself in a way. Every time I anchored and wound up 180 degrees from the way it was set I could back down on it. If it was set in the bottom and immediately offered great resistance I could assume it rotated submerged or immediately set again. If the anchor pulled out promptly one could assume the shackle went down the slot and was ready to do the trip line thing.
You have a slotted anchor and a lot of experience w it .. what think?
There's a problem with your shackle theory. There is a good chance that when a boat gets shifted off to the side by the end or current or both, particularly if it's a combination rode with only a bit of chain at the anchor end, the tension on the rode could be enough to lift the shackle, pull it over the top, and get it sliding down the slot to potentially unset the anchor. This likelihood would be reduced to a degree by using an all-chain rode with more weight to hold it down, but it's still a possibility
But as far as I'm concerned the whole concept of a slotted shank is a Very Bad Idea except in the case of deliberate anchoring in places with foul bottoms where the anchoring is only temporary. The prime example of this is sportfishermen who often anchor for bottom fishing or mooching in or near kelp beds or at the edges of or over reefs or in rocky areas where fouling an anchor is a very real possibility. Often these people fish for awhile, pick up and move, fish for awhile, and so on. An anchor that's easy to free when it gets stuck is a real benefit, and is the reason for Rocna making a slotted shank version of its anchor in the smaller "fisherman" sizes.
Manson did a smart thing by putting a shacke hole in their anchor shank along with the slot. Every Manson Supreme I've seen-- which has only been a few; they are apparently not very popular in this area-- has been shacked to the hole, not the slot.
Which goes to show that while the owner might not have been smart enough to buy a Rocna or order a Sarca, he or she is at least smart enough not to shackle to that stupid slot.
Of course one has no choice with a Sarca but it's easy enough to torque a nut, bolt, and lock washers down in the slot to ensure that the shackle can't slide. If we lost our first-generation Rocna for some reason we'd be inclined to order a Sarca. But we would either ask the manufacturer, or have it done here, to weld the slot closed at the attach end so we had just a hole to attach the rode to. We believe in reducing the risk of anchoring problems to the absolute minimum, and the slot is an unnecessary risk in our view.
But as far as I'm concerned the whole concept of a slotted shank is a Very Bad Idea except in the case of deliberate anchoring in places with foul bottoms where the anchoring is only temporary. The prime example of this is sportfishermen who often anchor for bottom fishing or mooching in or near kelp beds or at the edges of or over reefs or in rocky areas where fouling an anchor is a very real possibility. Often these people fish for awhile, pick up and move, fish for awhile, and so on. An anchor that's easy to free when it gets stuck is a real benefit, and is the reason for Rocna making a slotted shank version of its anchor in the smaller "fisherman" sizes.
Manson did a smart thing by putting a shacke hole in their anchor shank along with the slot. Every Manson Supreme I've seen-- which has only been a few; they are apparently not very popular in this area-- has been shacked to the hole, not the slot.
Which goes to show that while the owner might not have been smart enough to buy a Rocna or order a Sarca, he or she is at least smart enough not to shackle to that stupid slot.
Of course one has no choice with a Sarca but it's easy enough to torque a nut, bolt, and lock washers down in the slot to ensure that the shackle can't slide. If we lost our first-generation Rocna for some reason we'd be inclined to order a Sarca. But we would either ask the manufacturer, or have it done here, to weld the slot closed at the attach end so we had just a hole to attach the rode to. We believe in reducing the risk of anchoring problems to the absolute minimum, and the slot is an unnecessary risk in our view.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Nomad Willy
Guru
Not smart enough to buy a Rocna?
My oh my!
My oh my!
Similar threads
