I Will Pay The $$. Which Anchor Is Best?

Pgitug said:

I only have room for one anchor on the bow.
My boat is 21000 lbs, four foot draft and ten feet of house above the water.
I travel up the east coast annually from Florida to New England.
I am willing to pay the price.
What is the best anchor to buy???

Click to expand...

The most expensive one you can find is surely the best, as proven by all the folks buying it.

psneeld said:

no...but you state something like it is fact...every time anchor testing is done, every new anchor, every new poster, new anchor setting pictures and videos seem to disprove the earlier "facts"...

So I am just disputing the "smaller anchors set faster" statement unless you or anyone else can prove that without a doubt.

If it's your opinion...that's OK too....and I don't think it is a relevant general consensus.

But based on your anchoring success......

Click to expand...

But I saw a video. And we all know that videos are better than facts:lol::lol:

hmason said:

See post 156. We've come full circle.

Click to expand...

Interesting ....
Setting it hard.

Well if you set a Claw hard enough it very likely would be significantly unset ... more or more ready to break out. Re Steve's vids and loads of Bruce/Claw testimony of countless posts.
But most anchors generally tend to penetrate deeper because it's so hard to pull them out .. or start the breakout process.
How hard to set may be a much more important part of anchor deployment that we have'nt paid enough attention to. That may be worth exploring.
All anchors can be pulled out. Anchors can go as deep as they're going to go and be in a position to hold a boat as well as they can. Reaching a maximum performance set. Exceeding that one would come closer to breaking out .. until it happens. I've done that w a Claw .. decide to set a bit more and the line goes slack. But most of us probably think in terms of a much lighter set than max penetration but foggy obviously is'nt "most of us".

But I don't think foggy is setting that hard. He had a Supreme that is almost the best holding anchor there is but as Steve's tests showed the anchor is sensitive to clogging. Could be the area foggy is in has a lot of bottom growth. My experience w bottom growth is minimal because most of my anchoring has probably been in Alaska. And w Alaska's tides one doesn't tend to anchor shallow. I gravitate to about 40'. Even at that one is surly going to swing over 15' deep water and the tides are over 20'. However I have'nt anchored much in shallow water and it seems that's where bottom weed/growth is mostly found.

Setting at too short a scope could bring about consistant poor anchor performance. A combination of short scope setting and all line rode could insure bad anchor performance but I don't think foggy is doing that. Probably should check. A combination of two undesirables re deployment practices could definitely deal him a consistantly bad hand. I'm just throwing out guesses. Probably need more information from foggy to nail this down.

Hi foggysail...I don't remember if you mentioned this, but what depths are you anchoring in, how much rode are you putting out, how high is your bow above the water, are you accounting for bow height when calculating scope, and are you accounting for tidal range when calculating scope?

I'm thinking if anchoring in relatively shallow water any height variables like tide, not accounting for bow height, or wave surge will have a dramatic effect on scope which could result in an anchor getting "plucked" out of the bottom in a more vertical aspect than anticipated.

We have thick & oozy mud here instead of what sounds like the grass root reinforced wet concrete balls you're describing.

I read back ..
He's setting w twin 454 gas engines I assume he's setting above idle as he mentions the "454" engines numerous times as if "I've got lots of power" and I'm not bashful about using it.

Perhaps laying out the rode on the bottom and letting the wind set may get him better results.

foggysail,
Since you're Supreme was'nt so supreme perhaps you'd like to try one of mine. I could build one up for you complete w sticker shock. Sticker shock is because of the thread title. Less clogging w no roll bar. But you haven't made any cloggytales.

If we ever think you're not truthful in the future we can call you "foggytale" ?

What would the world be like without a Guru! He just has to show all how much he thinks he knows just to keep his title. But Gurus often slip just as anchors do and when you're an anchor Guru sometimes your thoughts get muddy.

seriously? do you know how you earn the title "guru" in your member avatar?

Foggy,
You sound offended.
Is'nt the first time that happened.
Had this mod anchor for some time and tried it out a coupla days ago. Ran-er up to 1800 for well over a minute. Line was twangy tight and no drag. So I was puffed up enough to do show and tell.

Don't mind w the Guru stuff. I was very much not liking it years ago but there's so many new people here now it's the only way I can rise up above the crowd ... but I rarely think about it. You'll probably be a Guru in a few weeks but enjoy your freedom now because guru status is irreversable as far as I know.
So now that I've got your attention at what rpm do you set those big boy hooks?

Eric--

PEACE!

Eric--

I run the engines up to about 1000, starting gently moving up with RPM and not staying long at the higher RPM, I don't want to cause any structural problems. And I want to mention that Steve's videos were important to someone making an anchor purchase choice. There is just one thing though that his videos I believe lead to a misunderstanding.

For example, in his MS video where he did a 180, the anchor quickly resets. If the bottom is muddy and muddy it is at Tashmo, the anchor can be chucked full of mud. His videos although very good showed the anchor basically clean of mud. When there is mud buildup on it, the anchor's resetting distance will be as long as it takes to get the tip clean enough to reset. In my case it had not reset for over a 40 drag as measured on my GPS.

Water depth--- again at Tashmo, the depth where I was anchored is about 8' at high tide so add another 4 for bow height for a total of 12'. I had over 60' of chain out there. I really think the reasons for the anchor not immediately resetting was because it was choked with mud.

When we left the next morning, I dragged the anchor along with about 5 feet of chain under engine to clean off mud.

Enough of anchors for awhile

Foggy,
OK good.
I've often wondered how dragging the anchor along under the boat would clear off the mud. Never done it as I fear tangling the light nylon line up in the prop.
Steve has a very nice sand/mud combination to work with. Any other bottom may have very different results. But having an anchor w the greatest range of bottom dealing ability is best as the biggest variable in anchoring is the bottom .... not the anchor.
Peace is fine.

"I've often wondered how dragging the anchor along under the boat would clear off the mud."

This is a standard procedure we use as well as many owners. We carefully drag the anchor slightly below the water line, watching to insure it does not hit the boat. Usually works quite well.

"But having an anchor with the greatest range of bottom dealing ability is best..."

Correct.

Steve Bedford

There do not appear to be many Ultra users on here. I have a 16 kg, 34 pound ultra for a 44 foot boat and have never had an issue coming unglued.

Steve Bedford,
Where is your commercial plaque that is below the avatar? Most commercial members display the dark red window looking plaque.
Wish we knew more about the Max. Anchor manufacturers often say surface area of fluke is proportional to holding power. But of course where the fluke winds up in the substrate has a lot to do w holding and the angle of the fluke relative to the rode is also more of less (I'd say mor) critical .. and quite a few other variables as well. But the fluke area is frequently called out as being the "most" important. And I must say your Max has huge fluke area. However the percentage of fluke area per pound of anchor indicates that all non-fluke appendages be as small or/and light as possible. The anchor that goes to the greatest extreme in this regard is the XYZ .. "Extreme". But the XYZ has done poorly in tests. IMO they don't test the right version of XYZ anchor.
However my reservation about your Max would be setting that very wide fkuke. Most flukes are very pointed. The Max anchor fluke gave me the notion to affix a wide fluke tip on one of my XYZ anchors and it has only failed to set once ... and that was on grass.
Why or how the Max sets could be much like the Claw as when it lands it must lean on it's side kinda like the Claw and engages the "corners" of the fluke. That could be a clue as to how the big fluke sets. But unlike the Claw the Max has huge fluke area. Don't recall seeing any recent showings in anchor tests but if I was marketing an anchor I'd be very very wary of submiting to the tests as there's so many variables. One's offering can do poorly depending variables beyond the control of the manufacturer. Mostly the bottom and the way the anchor is deployed.
Does the Max fluke engage the bottom sitting upright like a SUPER SARCA or does the cornner or fluke edge lead the way into the substrate? I suspect the corner does.

PS, I just read an old anchor test and it appears setting is absolutely not an issue w the Max anchor. It set very well every time in the test.

Fletcher500 said:

There do not appear to be many Ultra users on here. I have a 16 kg, 34 pound ultra for a 44 foot boat and have never had an issue coming unglued.

Click to expand...

There aren't many Ultra users as 99% of us find that other anchors work so well at about 1/5th the price that one could easily say it's a waste of money. Many (perhaps even most) think that re their Danforths and Claws work very well (or well enough) to not justifying spending large sums of money on anchors that are cheap compared to the Ultra. I don't drive a Jaguar and I don't have an Ultra.

However I read that they work very well and are the most beautiful anchor ever seen by me. But if you can find one for $150 I'll stop eating breakfast and head out w cash in hand.

I drive A five-year-old Kia. Sounds like I need to up my ride, to keep up with that anchor.

I have an Ultra, but I will just keep my old 500sl for now, had an XKE in the 70’s hope the new ones are better...

Pura Vida,
I even had a Jaguar XK140 roadster in the early 70's. Sold and traded everything I owned at the time to get that car.

Fletcher,
Who needs to keep up w what? Kia's are getting real good real fast from what I read. Even luxo. I ain't part'in w my 87 Nissan either .. love driving it ... 287Kmi though.

Ahh yes ..
Very interesting ...
The high percentage of weight on the edge of the fluke while on it's side ... is a successful formula for a number of other anchors as well. My bad .. did'nt visualize the Max on it's side.
What's your opinion on smaller anchors may work or work better or work better by penetrating deeper. In the PS test I have that features the Max it's by far the biggest and heaviest anchor. The specs presented in that test list the Max as having an 18lb anchor. Do you offer smaller anchors now?

9 times out of 10, the anchor will settle to one side or the other. The one remaining time is on the center of the fluke. Either direction provides immediate seabed penetration. The PS test may not have had the full range of sizes that we have now. My anchors now range in size from 7lbs to 115 lbs. Our history has always been to not skimp on size and weight. Most anchoring "experts" agree that it is best to have the largest possible anchor you, your vessel, and your equipment can handle. We do not undersize for sure.

Regarding a smaller or lighter anchor digging deeper than perhaps a larger or heavier anchor, my opinion is more to the anchor design and setting technique. If the design of anchor is such that it accentuates deeper penetration under load then it will dig deeper. If the anchor design is not the most conducive to digging deeper under strain then it does not matter the weight or size of the anchor. In soft mud and ooze a heavier anchor, designed well, will begin to penetrate before the setting process begins.

As I have said in the past, there are many excellent anchors out there for the consumer to choose from. I will not discredit any other anchor or criticize an owner for their choice of anchor. All I can do is report on and promote the qualities of our anchor (which I believe are excellent) and allow the consumer to decide. Also as I have said, an owner should be passionately confident in their own choice of anchor and I respect that. They have to trust the anchor on their bow because they have to believe that anchor will keep them safe and perhaps save their life. If they do not believe that about their anchor, "then perhaps we can talk!"

Thanks for the questions and comments. I learn more from every question and exchange. Y'all make me think!

Steve Bedford

Had a friend with a sailboat anchored in the Keys with a Bruce anchor. A thunderstorm came up during the night and the wind shifted 90 degrees. The Bruce turned, but before it could set it grabbed a chunk of coral the size of a basket ball. The anchor dragged and the boat was destroyed on the shoreline rocks. They escaped without injury.
I have questioned my tandem anchoring method. But after talking about his loss I am now committed to using two anchors in tandem, as I have without fail for the past eight years, to insure a safe night on the hook.
The Fortress goes in the water first, on an eight foot tether, followed by the Rocna on all chain. With the boat in reverse the two anchors have never fouled each other. In mud the Fortress is the first to hold. In grass the Rocna is the one that holds the boat. In most cases both are dug in. And a good nights sleep is had by all.

Pgitug said:

I have questioned my tandem anchoring method. But after talking about his loss I am now committed to using two anchors in tandem, as I have without fail for the past eight years, to insure a safe night on the hook.
The Fortress goes in the water first, on an eight foot tether, followed by the Rocna on all chain. With the boat in reverse the two anchors have never fouled each other. In mud the Fortress is the first to hold. In grass the Rocna is the one that holds the boat. In most cases both are dug in. And a good nights sleep is had by all.

Click to expand...

I've seen references to anchoring like that...

How and where do you attach the leading (first out) anchor to the trailing anchor (your Rocna) or the main rode? What's the tether made of?

(I guess when set they would have reversed those leading/trailing roles...)

-Chris

In the Jan/Feb "Good Old Boat" mag there's an article by an individual tandem anchoring.

In a few hours I'll try to copy it and post.

My take on tandem anchoring is to use a good anchor the weigh of both anchors combined.


Ranger,
Probably to the trip line hole provided in the bottom of the shank of the Rocna for trip lines. Or perhaps tandem anchoring. I doubt the later as tandem anchoring is so uncommon. There are several threads in the past than can probably be searched.

OK,
Here's the Good Old Boat magazine article.

Again I think if he had an anchor good at veering and reversing he'd be even better off w a 100lb anchor .. even a Claw. Combine the weight of both his 65lb and 35lb anchor for a 100lb anchor.

Was'nt an option for him as the 65lb anchor was his upper limit as he (like me) hand pulling was limited to a 65lb anchor. He's obviously stronger than me as my limit is about half that and I use little chain.

But for the average trawler one very big anchor would seem better. But there's a twin engine element here. If one anchor fails ?...........

ranger42c said:

I've seen references to anchoring like that...

How and where do you attach the leading (first out) anchor to the trailing anchor (your Rocna) or the main rode? What's the tether made of?

(I guess when set they would have reversed those leading/trailing roles...)

-Chris

Click to expand...

Most anchors, like the Rocna, have an anchor buoy hole in the forward end of the "Shank" which is opposite where you attach the chain rode. So I attach an eight foot 5/8" three strand line to my Fortress with an eye spliced on both ends and then shackle the other end to my Rocna buoy hole, going under the Rocna "Roll Bar". Pay out the Fortress first and when the eight foot line is out then continue dropping the Rocna on all chain, backing the boat during the process. Retrieval is easy. Raise the anchor chain until the Rocna is in the stowed position on the bow roller. Then reach over the bow rail and pull in the Fortress and stow it on the fortress clamp on mount.

Pgitug said:

Most anchors, like the Rocna, have an anchor buoy hole in the forward end of the "Shank" which is opposite where you attach the chain rode. So I attach an eight foot 5/8" three strand line to my Fortress with an eye spliced on both ends and then shackle the other end to my Rocna buoy hole, going under the Rocna "Roll Bar". Pay out the Fortress first and when the eight foot line is out then continue dropping the Rocna on all chain, backing the boat during the process. Retrieval is easy. Raise the anchor chain until the Rocna is in the stowed position on the bow roller. Then reach over the bow rail and pull in the Fortress and stow it on the fortress clamp on mount.

Click to expand...

Pgitug, my concern re the tandem approach is what happens when you anchor in situations where reverse current/tide always occurs. Does the Rocna ever foul the Fortress as it gets dragged past it..? Do they ever twist up..? Or do they hold so firm they actually don't reverse other than maybe the Rocna twists in the substrate at the first tide change, and becomes in effect, the only anchor. Unless the conditions were extreme, I suspect that might be what happens, in which cases maybe it would be simpler, and you would be just as secure, using the Rocna alone most times. Just a thought..?

But Peter he says they never foul .. in 8 years of using this setup.

And it's a lot simpler that the system in the mag article.

Nomad Willy said:

But Peter he says they never foul .. in 8 years of using this setup.

And it's a lot simpler that the system in the mag article.

Click to expand...

I think that was my point Eric. If they have never fouled in all that time, when in the normal course of events, one anchor would have to be being dragged past the other as they re-set after a current/tide/significant wind shift, and during which you would surely expect the Rocna to pick up the line to the Fortress across its fluke once in a while at least, does sort of beg the question...is the Rocna, the second anchor, and therefore the one that would have to be dragged past the Fortress in that re-set, ever in fact doing so..?

Or, is it staying set, twisting round, or breaking out but re-setting so quickly it is in effect rendering the Fortress at the end of the connecting line, basically redundant..? One would never know. You can't see. But never fouling one on the other in all those years might be the only evidence that might be the case.

My respectful suggestion therefore to PgiTug, is to just leave the Fortress off a few times and see how that goes. What's to lose..? Psneeld does that all the time. Marin also. In fact everyone else that uses a Rocna I know of does just that. He may be going to that extra effort for nothing, even if he has it down to a fine art. Just sayin'

Pgitug said:

I have questioned my tandem anchoring method. But after talking about his loss I am now committed to using two anchors in tandem, as I have without fail for the past eight years, to insure a safe night on the hook.
The Fortress goes in the water first, on an eight foot tether, followed by the Rocna on all chain. With the boat in reverse the two anchors have never fouled each other. In mud the Fortress is the first to hold. In grass the Rocna is the one that holds the boat. In most cases both are dug in. And a good nights sleep is had by all.

Click to expand...

Interesting that you've been doing this for so many years, but wouldn't it be simpler to just buy one anchor of double the weight instead of the hassle of two smaller anchors?

Here are tidbits on tandem anchoring

Two to Tandem: Maximizing Holding Power by Tandem Anchoring

Danforth types including the Fortress are shocking and are absolutely to be avoided. They are not general purpose anchors, and have no place in a tandem rig.

http://www.sailmagazine.com/cruising/cruising-tips/setting-tandem-anchors/

Tangs or bolt holes provided for trip lines are seldom positioned correctly for attaching a tandem anchor, and as such they shouldn’t be used for this purpose unless the manufacturer indicates it’s OK to do so. The only anchor that has a dedicated attachment point for a tandem anchor is the Rocna. If you are tempted to add a tang or hole for attaching another anchor in tandem, consult the manufacturer first.