New anchor buying decision

We've decided to invest in a new anchor.* We currently have a 176# Bruce/Claw but we can handle up to 275# or so without much trouble.* My reasoning on anchor selection is as follows:

1. While it is true that I am happy with the holding of my current anchor, I also know that happiness could dissipate pretty quickly at the worst possible time.* So, even though I don't need another boat expense, spending a fraction of what I pay for insurance to maximize the probability I don't need the insurance in the first place seems like a reasonable proposition.* The principal question then becomes what is a better anchor than what I've got?

2. My initial thinking was that the Rocna would be the best I could get.* But thanks to many of the posts on this forum, I reconsidered that conclusion and feel more comfortable going in a different direction.

3. The Excel anchor from SARCA in Australia, in the tests I have seen, has a very desirable characteristic, and that is a small environmental impact when used.* Off Port Townsend, areas have been closed off from anchoring to protect the eel grass - torn up by traditional anchors. My politics are slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, but I do not like the idea that my pasttime is trashing the beautiful spots I drop the hook.*

4. The company that makes the SARCA doesn't engage in the distortion of facts that I have seen from other manufacturer's representatives on this forum, which I personally find a real turn off.** Quality products sell themselves, and don't need bogus data or attacks on the competition to preserve market share.* Example of a quality product - Fortress, who produce an anchor that tests at the top of the pack in many conditions, and sells itself on that basis.* That's one of the reasons I carry one as a backup anchor.

5.* I find myself sold on the convex vs. concave argument.* Many of the new breed of anchors, like the Rocna, Spade, or Manson, are effectively scoops.* And scoops scoop, bringing up a lot of muck and mud that will take time to hose off.* This is a nuisance with my Bruce, but must be a real headache with a Rocna/Manson/Spade.*

6.* The Excel is manufactured with a Bismuth alloy shank and tip.* This is a very, very hard but flexible alloy, which won't snap under load like the high tensile shanks of the CQR, or the Rocna.* This is the downside of high tensile steel.* It has higher yield, but when it does yield, it snaps.* While not a problem with the Excel because of the characteristics of Bisalloy, if I had to choose between a mild steel shank that would bend or a high tensile shank that would snap, sign me up for a bent shank that saves my boat.

7.* The Excel is pretty.* Hoop anchors, including the Super SARCA and clones - not so much.* This is more a personal opinion on esthetics, but there you are.

8.* The Excel has excellent, best of breed holding.* While no anchor is perfect in all conditions, it does seem to test at the top in virtually all reputable tests of performance.* I exclude self-serving videos done by some manufacturers that are self-evidentally jiggered to favor their product from my definition of reputable tests.

10.* The Excel is made in Oz.* Many other anchors, like the Rocna, are manufactured in China.* I have nothing against outsourcing manufacturing and many fine products are made in China.* However, having been involved in production in China of products, I know that without extraordinary rigor in enforcing quality standards, quality may not be what you get.* Live there with them while they make it, no problem.* Contract someone to make it for you and live here, almost always a problem.* I would rather not find out about QC problems on my boat.

11.* The 125 kg Excel will fit in the same space as my 176# Bruce. *

Best environmentally, outstanding holding, pretty, first world manufacturing, all add up to the Excel being the best anchor for us.

Bottom line, for a fraction of a percentage of what it took to restore Delfin, I can't see skimping on what protects her in a gale.

One big disadvantage of the Excel or Super SARCA is that you have to ship the darn thing from Australia.* If anyone is interested in pooling an order for an anchor from these folks, let me know.* Maybe we can save some freight together.

Based on the shipping costs from the southwestern Pacific that were in place when we were talking to Rocna about one of their anchors, shipping anything over about 20 pounds can cost in excess of the value of the item you are shipping. This was one reason Rocna had just begun manufacturing their anchors in a second plant in Vancouver, BC, which is where we got ours.

At that time--- this was some five years ago or more-- the shipping cost for a Rocna 20 (44#) from New Zealand would have come close to or exceeded the purchase price of the anchor. I have no idea how shipping prices stack up today.

While you have made your choice and I see no reason for you to change it, I will say that for myself, I would never let the "ethics" of a manufacturer's advertising or promotional campaign prevent me from buying their product if I felt their product was the best thing for what I needed it to do. But then I've been working in the advertising and marketing world my whole life, so I take all the hype with a grain of salt. Hell, I help produce it, so perhaps I've learned to totally ignore it when making the final decision on what to buy, be it a TV, car, smartphone, or anchor.

In the case of an anchor, my boat's going to stay attached to the bottom by virtue of the anchor's design and manufacturing quality, not because the owner of the company tried to make a competitor look bad by conducting a test in such a way that the competitive product didn't perform as well as his own product. I may not agree with his promotional tactics, but if I think he makes the best anchor for my needs, that's what I'm gonna buy. His ethics are his problem, not mine



-- Edited by Marin on Monday 14th of February 2011 09:23:16 PM

Fair points, Marin.

I think you summed the situation up very well Delfin, and if I was you, buying an anchor for a boat your size, I would make exactly the same decision. All I can say on the shipping front is I did call Rex Frances of Sarca, and had a good chat about this very supply issue, and he assures me he is doing his best to line up a US manufacturer/distributor even as we speak. I can say no more, however, if you are not in too much of a hurry, so we are not talking air freight, I doubt the cost would be as bad as Marin suggests.

Remember that lizard in Jurassic Park? The one that flared out and made that awful sound**** ...kinda like the Arabian women to in demonstrations that sounds worse than a french ambulance? The lizard and those sounds have an effect on me that's not unlike the effect the Rocna Smiths have on me.
Carl,
I don't see how you can go wrong w the SARCA's. In Peter Smiths video w the wildly different draw speeds I was VERY impressed w how FAST the SARCA dug in as soon as it got turned around. I'm amazed at the extreme differences in performance from anchors that look almost identical. I have 3 steel Danforths but I've only used one mostly because the one I use works perfectly always. It's held us in 30 knot wind overnight but 50 knot stuff isn't rare at all up here so my anchor evolution goes on. Must be nice to solve the anchor dilemma so easily. TWO thumbs up

Thanks Peter and Eric.* One of the things I liked about the SARCA was their testing.* I know that there may be differences with beach testing vs. wet testing and so on, but the idea of dragging two (or three) anchors behind a balance bar seems like it provides a good apples to apples test.* There may be other conditions where the result is different, but at least in the example as tested, you know which anchor is superior.* I really don't see how such a test can be fudged.

Carl,As Marin pointed out they can show you the bar and allow you to draw conclusions about what the anchors are doing. Also I think dry sand testing is'nt quite apples and apples and very important to me there's no scope involved. But even on a dry beach an anchor that works best probably will work best under water too * * *...probably * *..I think??? Perhaps it favors one brand while in the water the other may be better out of the water. I like tests from the deck of a boat at various scopes on a consistent bottom. Think about who pays for these tests and a much better "scope" on anchors can be had by reading 4 or 5 tests. I think the Fortress has won all the tests it's ever entered and other anchors do very well all or almost all the time. And others never seem to make a positive showing. If you're interested in anchortology read those hyperlinks I put on the other thread.

One of the things which came out of my call to Rex Frances was he is going to see if he can put the whole video on the website of the anchor tests using that yellow machine and the drag bar and in shallow water so the conditions are comparable. I was given a copy of it when I was talking to him at a boat show, and it is extremely interesting, and very informative. Much more comprehensive than what can be seen in the short version on the website at present, and clearly impartial. The only reason they did not put the whole thing up there was they thought it might turn people off by its length and detail. However, as we know, real boaters want detail...right...?

Carl,
When you decide to buy and they have not started production on your side of the pond I will bring it over to you as excess baggage.
PS I only travel business at the least.

It would be good if Rex decides to start production over Stateside

Benn

Details,well yes Peter, but I don't want to be swamped(sorry) by details.What I really want is someone to tell me that given the conditions I use my boat in, with consideration to the size of the boat, what are say the best 3 anchors I should be looking at.

At present I have a 45lb plough anchor, a pretty standard piece of equipment when I look at other boats, that has never let me down, however having being woken up at 3.00am in a howling wind a couple of times I am open to suggestions. I just don't have the experience or technical know how to really understand the ins & outs of anchor technology. It's like which is the best car the Ferrari, Lamborghini or Porsche. Who knows? they're all great(actually it's the 1968 246 Dino Ferrari targa, my boyhood dream)

Danforth 190 HT. or next size up.

60 years of proven results rather than some add guys blither. And rigged "tests".

Ah, c'mon FF, get into the 21st century. Old is not best forever, just till something newer comes along which proves better, and that time takes longer for some things than others, (think of how long it took to go from vinyl to CD, VHS to DVD to Blue Ray), but even for anchors, that time has come.

Peter B wrote:Ah, c'mon FF, get into the 21st century. Old is not best forever, just till something newer comes along which proves better, and that time takes longer for some things than others, (think of how long it took to go from vinyl to CD, VHS to DVD to Blue Ray), but even for anchors, that time has come.

Click to expand...

I think*FF has a couple of 8 tracks still in use.

*

I brought my Danforth home to weigh it and noticed it has the cheap single flanged flukes made by bending a piece of sheet metal but a forged shank. It weighs in at 14lbs. This is the one that works so well. FF recommended "Danforth 190 HT. or next size up." for an anchor. I've been under the assumption that Danforth has'nt made an anchor for years and the reason you can buy a "Danforth" is because W Marine made some drawings of an old genuine Danforth, sent them out to various fabricators for manufacture and put them in their product line. Lots of others have made Danforth copies and I was under the impression the real Danforth anchor had a forged shank AND "T" shaped forged flukes as well. Does anybody know the real story behind Danforth anchors made in the recent past?

shrimp wrote:

What I really want is someone to tell me that given the conditions I use my boat in

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't think that's ever going to happen.* Oh, you'll get plenty of people telling you what the best three anchors would be but this would be based on their own experience, opinion, or theory, and each person's list will be somewhat different.

This is exactly the dilemma we faced when we finally realized the Bruce was great for oil rigs but crap for little boats like ours.* So what to replace it with?

Looking around our marina to see what everyone else was using we decided was a flawed method, because that's how we'd arrived at the decision to buy a Bruce in the first place.* The two most popular anchors in the PNW are the Bruce and the CQR.* We'd learned the hard way the Bruce is (in our opinion) a non-scaleable design, and neither one of us care for the design or principle of the CQR.* Add to this that probably some 90 percent of the boats in our marina never actually use their anchors but bought what everybody else had, and this made the "buy what the people around you have" theory even more invalid to us.

So we started reading articles and looking at tests and manufacturers websites.* At that time we hadn't even heard of the new-generation anchors like the Manson, Rocna, SuperMax, etc.* Once we had, the Rocna stood out from all the rest for lots of reasons so that's what we got.

So in my opinion, the only way to get the right answer to what you want is to do the same thing.* Start researching anchors, look at tests, and pay the closest attention to the independent reviews and owner testimonials.* You may well end up deciding the best anchor for your needs is not like anything anyone else around you has.* When we bought our Rocna I suspect it was the only one in our 2000 boat marina, not that I walked all the docks looking.* A couple of years later one appeared on the 50' Nordhavn near us, then a sailboat one dock over, and so it goes.

The suggestions you'll get or have gotten will provide a good starting point for your research, but I think you've got to figure this one out on your own.* We followed the pack and ended up with an anchor that was a disappointment in almost every way.* That anchor today is doing a marvelous job of propping open a door, and we have moved on to a design that makes a whole lot more sense and has (so far) a much better track record.

*


-- Edited by Marin on Tuesday 15th of February 2011 02:07:33 PM

I'd rather make a mistake*from my own choice rather than copying someone else's mistake.

Mark,
I think that's what Marin said**** .....He copied the "mistake" of others*** ....found it didn't work and then got down to business and did his own research, made his own decision, went w that all has been well since.

Marin,
I'm sorry to say this but I think I've heard this Stupid expression "next generation" this and next generation that more than enough times. I also think think your buddy Smith started it. Why can't you just say "we hadn't even heard of the newer anchors like" ect ect. A writer like yourself should'nt be dependant on cliches.

nomadwilly wrote:
I'm sorry to say this but I think I've heard this Stupid expression "next generation" this and next generation that more than enough times. I also think think your buddy Smith started it.

Click to expand...

I think "Next Generation" is a valid description to differentiate a newer product from an older one.* The complete name of the current version of the 737 is "737NG" for Next Generation.* (A bit unfortunate as NG can also stand for No Good So we usually say or write "NextGen 737".)

Believe it or not, I didn't know until fairly recently that the "G" in 2G, 3G, 4G, etc in wireless technology stands for "generation."

I have no idea where it started with regards to anchors.* I rather doubt it was Peter Smith or any of the anchor manufacturers themselves.* I suspect it was coined by some magazine writer who was charged with doing an article about the new developments in anchors.* The media is usually responsible for stuff like this.* The Boeing Model 299 was given the name "Flying Fortress" by an overly-enthusiastic newspaper reporter who witnessed the first flight of the plane in the 1930s.

But I have no problem with the terms "next-generation" or "new-generation."* In anchors there do seem to be two groupings.* The stuff that's been around forever--- Danforth, Bruce, CQR, Navy, Fisherman's, etc.--- and the new developments-- Bügel, Rocna, Sarca, Manson, SuperMax, XYZ, and so on.

Maybe if your anchor experiments pay off and you come up with a new design that proves to work better than anything else to date some magazine writer will review it and dub it the "third generation" of anchors.* The "Thorne Bay 3G" anchor.*



*

A google search show that Danforths are still being made and in the USA.

Link: http://www.danforthanchors.com/

Larry H

Larry H,
I looked at that web site and think the anchor they called "deepset II" was on at least one of the anchor tests that I posted on the last anchor thread. It looks superior to my Danforth yet fell flat on it's flukes in the test. My 14lb Danforth works superbly well up and including 30+ knots overnight on an 8 ton boat. I feel like if I got a 25lb version of my Danforth I could hang safely at 55 knots. These anchor tests seem to be misrepresenting traditional anchors capability in the extreme. The newer anchors are better to be sure but they aren't perfect anchors however they perform numerically at levels twenty times as strong as Danforths and Bruces. I just don't believe the difference is anywhere near that great. Do the rest of you on this forum actually believe these newer anchors are 20 times as good as the old?

nomadwilly wrote:

*Do the rest of you on this forum actually believe these newer anchors are 20 times as good as the old?

Click to expand...

If a new generation anchor (sorry) holds our boat where an old generation anchor dragged, I would say the new anchor is 100 percent and a billion times*better than the old one.* But it would be a tough thing to prove with any consistency because anchoring is nothing but variables.

*

nomadwilly wrote:

*Do the rest of you on this forum actually believe these newer anchors are 20 times as good as the old?

Click to expand...

No I don't.* From all the hype, one would think that that older anchors weren't any more effective than a rock at the end of a rope.* Anchors are treated as fashion statements: you aren't "with it" unless you have the "now" anchor.* If I began to experience anchoring failures, I'd probably end up spending +$$ for some newfangled anchor.**I've found*the "muck" at the bottom of the San Francisco Bay/Delta area, however, to be*very kind to anchors.

*

Eric, I think there is an alternative way to look at this question.* No, newer anchors are not 20 times better than older designs.* However, if you're hanging from a rope from the 50th storey of a building that breaks when loaded at 5# less than your body weight, that rope is worth a whole lot less than a rope that breaks at 5# more than your body weight.* It's all in the outcome, and the best possible design, even if only marginally better, can be pretty decisive if your boat is at stake.

When the question is: What will hold your boat in a desired position while the vessel is being influenced by tide, current, winds, etc., I have found that the "sky hook" feature on the Zeus drives does a teriffic job.



-- Edited by SeaHorse II on Tuesday 15th of February 2011 10:36:42 PM

nomadwilly wrote:
*Do the rest of you on this forum actually believe these newer anchors are 20 times as good as the old?

Click to expand...

Marin wrote:
If a new generation anchor (sorry) holds our boat where an old generation anchor dragged, I would say the new anchor is 100 percent and a billion times*better than the old one.* But it would be a tough thing to prove with any consistency because anchoring is nothing but variables.
*_________________________________________________________
and Delfin wrote
Eric, I think there is an alternative way to look at this question.* No, newer anchors are not 20 times better than older designs.* However, if you're hanging from a rope from the 50th storey of a building that breaks when loaded at 5# less than your body weight, that rope is worth a whole lot less than a rope that breaks at 5# more than your body weight.* It's all in the outcome, and the best possible design, even if only marginally better, can be pretty decisive if your boat is at stake.
___________________________________________________________________
Gentlemen, I think the above comments about sum this issue up very well.* Marin refered to the variables - ie "the things we don't know we don't know".
Well that being the case, doesn't it make sense to elliminate what variables one can - and top of the list of those is to have an anchor that sets reliably and quickly and repeatedly in as many bottom types as it can, thus removing one worrying variable. Then, taking up Defin's point, make sure the*tackle connecting all this to the boat is heavy enough to do the task with some reserve.* After that it is basically a case of using ones common sense as to what other unexpected variables might then apply in any given situation, and adjusting plans accordingly?

*

Marin,
I know you're not sorry.

Mark,
That's what Rex said*** ....if your anchor works fine why change it. But I know eventually I'll anchor in twice as much wind as I've experienced w my Danforth.

Carl,
Thank god I'm not anchoring from 50 story buildings.

Yea Walt.

Peter,
Sense and common sense. Your'e always there with it and that's to our advantage.
Thanks Peter.

Sorry my anchor test hyperlinks didn't work. Just tried them a few minutes ago. Sorry.

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Tuesday 15th of February 2011 11:09:33 PM

Lots of problems ought to be avoided with a 1:7 to 1:10 scope.

nomadwilly wrote:
Sorry my anchor test hyperlinks didn't work. Just tried them a few minutes ago. Sorry.

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Tuesday 15th of February 2011 11:09:33 PM

Click to expand...

Aha....so it wasn't just me then.....
Maybe if you copied in the actual URL Eric, I think what fooled us was it looked like you copied them from your saved file name, which is not a URL - I was able to work out what the URL was for a couple of them, and get them up - some others not.

*

The point missed here is an anchor that is*of *lightyears better design (doubtful)** than the previous means one could realistically get by with a*lighter anchor, which none of us are willing to do. So unless you are willing to triple the capacity of your rode and cleats,* the old designs if of sufficient mass are just fine.

Me, if I*had to buy a new anchor would replace my Bruce with a one size up Rocna. But that said,*Sarca sounds good if it were only available in NA. My standby unused Fortress remains in its bag testing its half life.

Mark,
If I had lots of room I'd be at long scope all the time. It's easy to pay out more line.

Peter,
Sorry to say I don't know what URL is. It's part of an address I know but???
The only way I learn anything is to try something new. It wouldn't let me copy right off the downloads page so after much stressing and the possible sacrifice of a download I had 2 of I found I could put them on my desktop and then they went to the post ect ect. Don't really know what I'm doing. Can I post a hot link from my downloads? Do you guys want to see all those anchor tests? The anchor talk seems to be a bit burnt out.

Tom,
"could realistically get by with a*lighter anchor, which none of us are willing to do."
That's what I've been more than willing to do. I wanted to find an anchor and rode that would give me good performance w a rig light enough to easily pull by hand. W my 25' boat anchoring was a joy. I liked pulling by hand and everything was easy to handle.
But now my boat is bigger and weighs 4 times as much and I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too. Thought I could do it w a far out anchor*** ...XYZ. Still haven't got the new one yet. But if this one dos'nt work well I'll give up and go conventional. Don't know what you guys will do for entertainment.