Too much anchor

I am considering replacing my old plow with a new Manganese Delta. The 35# shows to be for a 42-50' powerboat. We are in sand or mud anytime we anchor. Will run 25' of chain and the balance 5/8 line. Having the windage a Sundeck has, I would probably prefer to go with the larger 45# version, but the mechanical windlass would make retrieval a chore. Thoughts??

I'm always in favor of bigger. If your concern is weight, how about a Fortress? My Fortress FX-23 has held my Krogen42 plus six other boats in a raft-up in 10-15 knot wind down at Offatt's bayou. Or maybe time for an electric windlass?

Steve:* What windlass do you have?* If 10 lbs more of anchor is going to be a challenge, maybe you should up grade your windlass.* Or you could go with 20 feet of chain and gain some capacity that way.* Given the size of your boat and wind-age,* I would go with the 45lb anchor.

Hey Keith, I have a Fortress that I use for overnight but it doesn't pull into the pulpit roller without just hanging down. As I recall- I have a Lefrans windlass. I insert a lever and crank back and forth that works great. Truth be known, my usual retrieval is to have the Admiral pull ahead as I guide her and after breaking the anchor out I pull it up by hand. This works fine with the 36# plow and the 37 Fortress. A new windlass is not in the budget right now. Question: My current windlass has a chain drum and a line drum, can't remember the proper salty nomenclature :smile:. If I were pulling in a 45# anchor, how would I transition from line to chain? Currently I have to unwind from the line drum, pull on a few more feet and then drop it into the chain drum. Then crank it in the remainder. There's got to be a better way.......

My 40 Albin originally had a 35 Delta (or maybe it was a 33) when I bought it. After my first season I ditched the 35 because I dragged a couple of times and went to a 44 Delta. No more dragging (all chain rode also).

Therefore I also suggest the larger anchor.

*

*


-- Edited by jleonard on Wednesday 9th of November 2011 09:04:55 AM

Steve,

Sounds like you're situation is a little like mine. Limited anchor and rode due to limited ability to pull it up all coupled to lack of funds. That's how I got into all this anchor performance stuff. To make the transfer just get a little line w a bowline at one end and a hook (w spring loaded pawl) and when you get the rode up to the chain hook into a link that gives you enough slack so you can start the chain on the gypsy. As to the anchor you should get one that dos'nt have ballast as that's extra weight. I bought a small winch new for $425. that has lots of power (seems to) but it has only a drum. I pull the chain and anchor by hand. But my boat and rode is quite a bit smaller than yours. There are anchors that will give you more holding power without more weight. My XYZ probably does but I have'nt tested it in gale conditions yet so I can't really recommend it. It sets well though. And it's not the best on the bow either. Keith's recommendation is excellent as the holding power to weight is the highest of any anchor. You could retreive it like I do my anchors. When the anchor is 1 to 3' from the bow roller I lean over the side and pull it up behind the bow roller and over the cap rail on deck. Hardware for securing a Danforth to the deck is commonly available. Another that I'm quite sure will solve your problem is the Max anchor. wingspar (on TF) has one and was very happy*w it. I think they fit on the bow OK but are'nt very good looking. That's important to some. For a little more holding power just changing to one of the two roll bar anchors available in the US may suffice but I'd be looking at the Max or a Fortress if only the anchor is going to change. Also keep in mind that the Delta's holding power is excellent given a good set and lots of scope so good seamanship could very well substitute for more anchor weight but in many anchorages of small size or too many boats swinging room for long scope is not an option. Could you handle all chain and a 45lb anchor w your present winch?

I would have the biggest anchor that the windless can pull with all chain.* Also for sand/loose bottom an anchor with a big surface area which the claw and plough might not have. I don't think there is one anchor that fits all conditions?

Steve--- Your question is a bit like, "I really need a parachute for jumping out of my plane in an emergency but I don't really have a good place to stow it, so I'm thinking an umbrella will work just as well."

Strictly to my way of thinking, particularly since experiencing first hand the results of poor anchor performance, I think a boat should be equipped with whatever it takes to keep it in place under the worst conditions the boater can conceive of encountering in the waters he boats in. For a boat the size and weight of yours--- remember, it's not just the wind that can un-set your anchor, the waves and the weight of your boat pitching up and down on a tight anchor rode will contribute, too--- I would not even consider a 35# anchor of the typical designs--- Bruce, CQR, Danforth, Rocna, Manson Supreme, etc. In fact I'm not sure I'd stop at even a 44# anchor but go at least to the next size up. If you have a really big Fortress and the bottoms you anchor in are suitable for this Danforth-type anchor, you can most likely get away with a lighter anchor.

If the bottoms you anchor in dictate a more multi-purpose anchor than a Fortress, then I would get the heaviest one your boat can accommodate without messing up the trim or being too unwieldy to stow. If your current windlass can't cope with this weight of anchor, then get a windlass that can.

With some exceptions, the anchor weights as recommended by the manufacturers tend to be too small for reality. This was certainly the case with Bruce when they were making small boat anchors. As Carl (Delfin) has pointed out--- correctly in my opinion--- the larger and heavier a Bruce anchor is, the more reliable it will be. The recommended size for our boat was 33#. So that's what we bought and it proved to be a bad choice. Had we been absolutely determined to make a Bruce work, knowing what we know now I would not get one for our 36' boat that was less than sixty or seventy pounds and preferably 100 pounds. This way the weight would make up for what I believe is the inherent deficiency of its design when the anchor is reduced in size for boats like ours. But our boat can't accommodate a 60 or 70 or 100 pound anchor. So we went to another design. The point being, don't go just by what the manufacturers say is the size for your boat.

You will get away with a too-light anchor of a less effective design on the end of a weak windlass in most of your anchoring situations unless you regularly visit exposed anchorages where stronger winds and waves are the norm. But like everything else, every anchor including a rock is 100% reliable until the day it fails to hold your boat. And usually that day is actually night or 3:00am when the winds pick up, your anchor starts to drag, and you're anchored off a close-by lee shore. Wishing you'd bought a larger or more effective anchor, or that you had a windlass that would get the anchor up at something greater than a snail's pace is not going to make the situation any less dangerous.

You've only got one chance to get your anchor, rode, and windlass combination right. Because unless you're Eric and change anchors and rodes on a daily basis -) ) what you buy is what you will have until the day comes when it fails you. Since none of us want that day to come, it makes sense to get the best setup for your boat and your anchoring conditions right off the bat.

Do you want to take off on a flight with a parachute or an umbrella on board?

Hey Eric- that that is a ton of great information. And a great idea about transitioning to chain at the winch. I gotta admit my anchor design has a lot more to do with how it stows than how it holds :smile:. The plow nestles and self launches great. So I figure a similar design would be the best choice. On longer trips I generally keep the Fortress tied on and do as suggested and swing it up on deck. Problem is these trips are usually along the ICW going to Texas and we have lots of Gumbo mud that can make for a pretty grimy anchor. Same concern for a chain, could be lots of mud on anything inland. I suppose late my ideal set up would consist of a great anchor, all chain, electric windlass and a wash down system.

Steve,

Since you use the word "ideal" I'd say no * ...the best system would consist of ideal parts. Winch - Hydraulic fisherman's reel winch that will accommodate any number of chain sizes, shackles and thimbles so you can choose the IDEAL rode to go w your winch. No splices, super heavy chain, extra heavy chain and heavy chain on the first 25% of your rode. And 75% nylon. Nice stretchy nylon. You'll save at least 100lbs of chain over all chain and this can go into the mother of all anchors w no more weight than all chain all the same size like Marin and most of the all chain guys here. Then you'd have a 125lb anchor w the same weight of anchor and rode that Marin has. On your boat I'd go w an 80lb Forfjord, 65 lb Bruce/claw, or other anchors of 30 to 44lbs. BUT those hydraulic winches start at $3000 and you'll need an hydraulic pump on a power take off on your engine. Marin has a really excellent electric winch but it's close to $3000. Ther'es lots of winches but you'rs probably just needs to be rebuilt. But for right now either modify your bow to accept the Fortress (if it's big enough - or get one bigger) or get a Super Max. The Super Max may be the best mud anchor there is but the manufacturer says it's good for all bottoms. But most all manufacturers say stuff like that but I'm impressed with what I see. When choosing your ground tackle you should consider the trim of the boat without any gear. If it's stern light and bow down your choice of ground tackle will be limited to super light. In this case the boat would be the major influence in the choice of ground tackle.*

Marin I think most anchor manufacturers boat size recommendations are much better than you imply. One needs to pay attention to the wind speed numbers. Some list their anchor weights to only 20 knot winds. And I disagree w your "only one chance" notion. You already took two big steps (not at the same time) yourself and it's likely you made small steps as well. I admit I'm an odd duck in that I like being on the road to perfection better than actually solving the problem of anchoring.*

nomadwilly wrote:
...*I disagree w your "only one chance" notion. You already took two big steps (not at the same time) yourself and it's likely you made small steps as well.

Click to expand...

You get plenty of chances assuming your boat survives each instance of dragging.* What I meant was almost everyone decides what they want to get based on input, reading, other boaters, whatever, and they buy it and put it on their boat.* And they will stick with that until they have an experience that convinces them they bought the wrong thing.

But when*your anchor starts dragging at night in a storm, you can't say, "Hold everything, nobody move"*and expect the storm to pause and wait*while you*run back to the store and buy a bigger anchor or whatever.* You're stuck with whatever it was you bought in the first place.* That's what I meant by you only get one chance to get it right.


-- Edited by Marin on Wednesday 9th of November 2011 08:01:42 PM

nomadwilly wrote:
Marin I think most anchor manufacturers boat size recommendations are much better than you imply.

Click to expand...

I*made that statement based on what I was told awhile back by the Bruce rep for the Puget Sound area.* He said that the Bruce sizing chart was based on "normal" anchoring conditions and did not take into account winds higher than a particular strength, which as I recall was actually fairly low.* If one wanted to size their anchor based on the possibility of encountering higher winds, the Bruce sizing chart's recommendations were all a size or two too small (in his opinion and experience).* At that time, he said the same was true of most of the then-established anchor types like CQR, Danforth, etc.

This was before the Rocna, Manson, etc. had made the scene.* I know the Rocna sizing chart at the time we were researching a new anchor made a point of saying their size recommendations were based on storm conditions, not "normal" conditions.* So perhaps the newer anchors have more realistic sizing charts or perhaps the charts for the old types have been revised.

Marin wrote:

nomadwilly wrote:
Marin I think most anchor manufacturers boat size recommendations are much better than you imply.

Click to expand...

I*made that statement based on what I was told awhile back by the Bruce rep for the Puget Sound area.* He said that the Bruce sizing chart was based on "normal" anchoring conditions and did not take into account winds higher than a particular strength, which as I recall was actually fairly low.* If one wanted to size their anchor based on the possibility of encountering higher winds, the Bruce sizing chart's recommendations were all a size or two too small (in his opinion and experience).* At that time, he said the same was true of most of the then-established anchor types like CQR, Danforth, etc.

This was before the Rocna, Manson, etc. had made the scene.* I know the Rocna sizing chart at the time we were researching a new anchor made a point of saying their size recommendations were based on storm conditions, not "normal" conditions.* So perhaps the newer anchors have more realistic sizing charts or perhaps the charts for the old types have been revised.



I agree here with you Marin. And you guys above the Mason Dixie Line have much more to consider when anchoring than those of us in the South on most any day. We just don't have the tidal range that you see. It's hard to believe that the anchor size recommended for our length boat is no heavier than it is. Perhaps it's like "ownership costs" of a particular car or piece of equipment. If you extend the maintenance interval long enough "your" product will be less expensive to maintain. Until the catastrophic failure occurs. Maybe for marketing purposes it is adventagous for a particular anchor to be "adequate" for a vessel that is actually much more than it is capable of keeping in place. And when the "catastrophic failure" occurs, you learn a very valuable, very expensive lesson!

Steve, like Marin said....

"If the bottoms you anchor in dictate a more multi-purpose anchor than a Fortress, then I would get the heaviest one your boat can accommodate without messing up the trim or being too unwieldy to stow. If your current windlass can't cope with this weight of anchor, then get a windlass that can."

For what it's worth, my vessel is 34 ft and weighs in at about 8-9 ton, and I have a Super Sarca anchor which was the recommended size for my boat, and then up one, so I have a 22kg anchor which converts to ~49 pounds.* I would not ever have a lighter one, not of any make.* Your 42 ft boat really needs at least a 50 - 55 pounder to give most reliable results in my view.* I realise the winch to haul that is not cheap, but in many ways it's the most important item of equipment on the boat, right?

Sarca suggest this weight for your size... http://www.anchorright.com.au/products/show-anchors?id=8

and for those interested in the Sarca specifically and why it is so good, take a gander at this recent video from recent sydney Boat Show.* A similsr demo sold me on it years ago.

While we have never had a problem with our 60# CQR , Danforth or Bruce ,

I an going to try a 80KG anchor , to see id "one size " can fit all hassles.

The Hyd windlass wont notice.

Hey, why do'nt you guys just sink your boat. With the boat and the anchor on the bottom you'll not drag for sure. HAHA

Fred you better check to see if your stern's still in the water.

Peter that may be a bit of over kill on the weight but maybe not as I would have a 33lb Sarca and your boat's bigger than mine and a tad heavier. And I have'nt seen where you anchor. So that's Rex the anchor man. We talked on PM and I rather liked him. He suggested an anchor buddy (as he called it) or here in the US a sentinel or kellet. I made one out of eye bolts and 20lb lead weights like what they use on fishing marker/floats * ....The kind w the mast sticking up. I can run it down as a kellet is traditionally deployed (separate line) or attach it to the chain just ahead of the shank. Have'nt used it yet. I see Anchor Right has put numerous slots in the Excell like in the Sarca. I suspect that looses some holding power but I think Rex has probably tried them w/o the slots too. I like the Sarca too but I'm quite sure they still are'nt availible in North America. And I'm still against heavier is better over and above what is really called for for the job. If you did that w everything on your boat you'd have a very wet boat and perhaps a submarine. My dad had a lobster yacht built in Maine that was over built and over heavy. Was 36' w a 6-71 DD and it would barely make 9 knots.

Most would*agree FF, tripling*the anchor size will keep you from dragging. Which you don't do anyway with the current 60#ers.**

nomadwilly wrote:
...I'm still against heavier is better over and above what is really called for for the job.

Click to expand...

*No argument with this.* But sometimes what's required to do the job is a heavy anchor.* Particularly in cases where a big part of the job is to be able to punch down through a crusty surface (apparently a common challenge on the east coast), or hold the boat in potentially severe conditions.

I think*a boater who deliberately avoids weight in an anchor even though his boat can handle it and the weight may make the difference between staying put and wandering off somewhere else at 3:00am when the wind and waves kick up,*is living in a false economy.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda is meaningless when the boat is dragging toward the rocks.* Theory has a tendency to go out the window at times like these.* It's all well and good to say "weight is always bad" as a justification for going with the lightest anchor one thinks they can get away with.* But nature has a nasty habit of not really carying what one thinks she ought to do.* So it's better, in my opinon, to be fully prepared to deal with the worst possible conditions within the constraints of what the boat can truly*handle.

So this does not mean putting an 80 or 100 pound anchor on a 36-foot planing lobsterboat.* It also does not mean putting a*20 pound anchor on that same boat simply because "weight is bad in the bow of a planing boat."* If*the pursuit of*that theory subsequently endangers the boat in a blow, or worse, puts it on the rocks, the relatively minor reduction in*cruise*performance--- if there even is one--- from an anchor sized to hold the boat under more sever conditions suddenly becomes worth it.

But when that 36' lobsterboat is skipping it's little 20-pound anchor across the bottom as the wind blows it onto the lee shore it's a little too late to chastise oneself for putting the priority on the wrong thing.

They say, get an anchor so big everyone will laugh at you when you pull into port.
I have toyed with the idea of making a HUGE danforth style out of plywood, painting it galvanized color, and pulling into an MTOA rendezvous to see the reaction.
Steve W

Whadiyu mean no argument from you Marin? Right after you say that we get 4 paragraphs of argument haha. Weight keeps the angle of the rode low at the shank and helps the fluke penetrate the bottom. After that it's the size and (to a certain extent) the shape of the fluke that holds the boat in place. Has almost nothing to do w weight. If your Rocna suddenly turned into titainium after you set it well it would hold just as well as the steel Rocna. Look at the Fortress. It's flukes have very little weight on the tips but unless it's grass on hard they dig right in and the fluke gets buried. Remember when I held tight in a 50+ knot gale in Allison Harbour for a day and a half on a 13lb anchor? That says it right there. Anchor design is where it's at but there is a lot of other circumstances especially the bottom type. But as stupid as it may sound FF has a point if one wants to anchor anywhere a ridiculously heavy anchor will probably be the best solution to seamless performance. So if we were all going to solve our anchor holding problems with an anchor twice as big as what's right for our boats what anchor would be best? Most of us would probably just get the same kind we now have but twice as big. Not me though. If I had to use a 55lb anchor it would be a claw. Come to think of it probably most others would too for the same reason in that it's easy to handle on the bow roller.*

I agree that design has more to do with holding that weight alone.* But in some situations--- the crusty bottom surface being one of them-- weight helps the anchor penetrate.* And I believe it was you who kept saying if we'd had a 44# Bruce instead of a 33# Bruce on our boat it would have held better even though 33# was the size Bruce said was right for our boat.* (And a 44# Bruce woudn't have made a lick of differnece anyway.* A 66# or 88#*Bruce on our boat might have.)* Carl's made a very good point several times about the bigger and heavier a Bruce is, the better it will hold.

So for some type of anchors, weight does mean something.

I've said all along the Fortress is solid proof that weight alone is not necessary for good holding.* If it was, the Fortress wouldn't work.* That's a perfect example of design over weight in the bottoms the design is suited for.

As to your question of what would we pick if we were going to get a really big anchor, I'd probably pick a spade-shaped anchor.* Not necessarily a Rocna, Sarca, or Manson because in really large and heavy sizes the rollbar may not be necessary.* I still wouldn't pick a Bruce because I think it's a poor design until you get into a weight measured in tons.* But anything where the area of the blade is directly opposed to and resists*the force pulling on it would be good.* As opposed to something like a CQR or Delta where the flukes are streamlined in the direction of pull.

No anchor is good for all bottoms. The roll bar anchors can get plugged w mud and need to be brought up and cleared before setting can be tried again. I think the SARCA is probably the closest to an all bottom anchor we have and "we" here in the US actually do'nt actually have it. You and Carl are into this anti-scaling but I do'nt buy it. You said what anchors you would'nt choose but you did'nt make a choice. I'd feel pretty safe w a 100lb Kedge. Choose now.

I don't know where you get this bit about the rollbar hoop getting plugged with mud. Have you ever actually seen a 44# or larger Rocna/Sarca/Manson anchor? The diameter of the rollbar hoop is such that there is no way it can be plugged with mud. The diameter is too big to support a sheet or wad of mud in the middle. A very small rollbar might. And the spade fluke itself can bring up a lot of mud, as did our Bruce. But in the huge amount of material I read about Rocnas, pro and con, nobody ever said anything about the rollbar having a plugging or clogging problem. We have used ours in very soft mud in Pender Harbor where the fluke brought up a dumptruck load of muck. But the rollbar hoop was perfecly clear other than mud coating the rollbar tube itself.

Everything scales when one item changes size and the other doesn't. Wind tunnel models scale--- the air molecules that flow over them are the same as the molecules that flow over a full size airplane. This is why we have banks of supercomputers to take wind tunnel results and "scale" them up to 1:1 ratio. Otherwise a lot of wind tunnel data would be meaningless. Anchors in the bottom are no different. You can change the size of the anchor, but you can't change the size of the sand grains or mud bits or adhesion properties of the muck on the bottom. That stays the same whether the anchor weighs five pound or five tons. And since an anchor's performance is teh measure of what it does in the bottom, it stands to reason that as you change the size of the anchor, the anchor's performance will change, too, because the bottom isn't changing along with the anchor.

I said I'd probably select a spade-type anchor. The variable would be whether or not a rollbar would be of value as the anchor size got considerably larger.* But I believe* a spade-type fluke is the most effective in the widest varieties of anchoring situations.





-- Edited by Marin on Saturday 12th of November 2011 01:09:08 AM

I got the mud stuff from an anchor test in "Sailing today". They said:
The Scoop's downside for us is that it would require a new bow roller, but they have a further negative attribute in that they compact the seabed within the scoop - possibly due to the constraint of the roll bar. This compacted mass of seabed is retained by the anchor when it's lifted, increasing the weight of the anchor and discouraging it to reset should it ever drag. Furthermore if, when the anchor is initially dropped, it becomes clogged with weed, then the only way to retrieve the situation is to lift the anchor, clear the weed and try to reset it - not a task I fancy on a cold, wet night.
*
I did'nt come up w that on my own. Did'nt think about it till I read that. And of course it has'nt happened to me w my Supreme but I have'nt even anchored in mud w it. I've probably only used it about 6 times. *Sometimes you're like a little goat w your little feet jammed into the ground determined not to move an inch. You say "spade type anchor" * * .......OK I'll put you down for a Spade anchor. And about the scaling * ...I think ya got me there. You're right. "Everything scales". *That's true. Everything does scale. But (I'll be the goat now) I'm not sure a 15lb anchor and a 65lb anchor is enough "scale" to experience a real world effect. May be though. Probably does to some degree w Carl's monster anchor. *So I'll give in poo pooing the scale effect. But I do'nt think the regular guy on this forum needs to consider it while looking for an anchor. Did you see on the other thread where the Spade anchor people weighed in here on TF? *Nice response.

nomadwilly wrote:
I got the mud stuff from an anchor test in "Sailing today". They said:
The Scoop's downside for us is that it would require a new bow roller, but they have a further negative attribute in that they compact the seabed within the scoop - possibly due to the constraint of the roll bar.

Click to expand...

*Never heard of a Scoop anchor so I looked it up on the web.* It is a generic term that includes not only rollbar anchors but also claw-type anchors---- like the Bruce.*

Never say never, so I suppose it's possible with a very small rollbar anchor to pack the rollbar hoop with mud but I don't believe that it's anything to worry about with the larger sizes.* As I say, we've never had any issue with this in any bottom material--- including mud of various densities-- and I've never even heard it mentioned in all the research and subsequent reading I've done on rollbar anchors.* Your quote is the first I've ever seen.* However, the Rocna does indeed bring up a lot of bottom materal on the fluke if the bottom is soft.

I noticed in looking up "scoop anchor" that Rocna now offers a "fishermans" anchor.* It is a standard Rocna but with a slot in the shank like a Manson and Sarca.* However, Rocna describes this anchor as a "specialty" anchor for fishermen who anchor and then move, anchor and then move, during rhe course of a day.* The slot provides a way to easily trip the anchor should it become snagged on a rock or reef or bottom debris, which is a higher possibility given where most sport fisherman anchor.

I think the slot is a clever idea for this type of repetitive, short-term use.* But for anchoring a boat for longer periods of time, particularly in places where the boat will be moved around the anchor by winds and currents or both and perhaps get moved more than 90 degrees off to the side of the anchor, I have read too many independent accounts of the rode shackle sliding to the fluke end of the anchor and backing it out of the bottom.* I remember reading one testimonial that blamed the grounding of the boat on this very occurance.* So great idea for short term anchoring like fishing, not so good for long-term anchoring.* If we anchor in a location that is known to have, or* we think might have, debris on the bottom (like Squirrel Cove in Desolation Sound) we use a buoyed trip line on the anchor.

Eric, as to your which anchor question, I looked at the Spade website and have decided I don't like them.* Their fluke is too narrow at the base and they appear to be totally dependent on the weight and leverage of the shank to rotate the fluke tip down into the bottom.* Because they have nothing to aid this rotation or make sure the anchor ends up on its side if it lands wrong or if the weight of the shank is not sufficient slice the point of the fluke into the bottom the anchor will simply slide along the top.* So I stand by my "spade-type" comment.* The actual Spade does not look like an optimum design to me.* I think a spade-shaped fluke is the way to go, but the Spade anchor does not appear to me to be the way to go there.

So if you absolutely have to have a brand name I would be inclined to stick with the Rocna or Sarca in a real big size. I'm in a position to be able to get a Sarca if I thought I wanted one, so that anchor is a viable choice for me.* I think the Manson is a less-effective design than either the Rocna or Sarco so I would not consider one (in any size).







-- Edited by Marin on Saturday 12th of November 2011 01:26:09 PM

HAHA I saw that slotted Rocna on West Marine. I guess they figured they did'nt want anybody buying a Manson just because it has a slot. Scoop??? I'm not a dictionary so I'm not sure about the history of words but they showed a picture of a Supreme chocked w mud so I assumed they were talking about the Rocna and Supreme. The Sarca probably has much less of a problem because it's RB is so large and has such a small dia RB.*

Re your picture ..how can you stand all that forest of tubes and crap ahead of the helmsman. Here's what it should look like. (see pic)

Double size anchor? I think everybody on here that dos'nt have a claw would opt to go w a claw w an anchor that big. That would be 88lbs for you Marin. And that would be in addition to all your chain. You'd probably need special windshield wipers. I'll confess that if the anchor tests had'nt said the Rocna's short scope performance was not very good I'd have bought one instead of the Supreme. I liked the sharper fluke, outboard edges of the flukes and the overall looks of the thing. Also I did'nt like the slot on the Supreme in that I did'nt think it went back far enough. I put my trip line under the RB. But it looks like the Rocna and Supreme are about exactly the same performance (very high) in all the anchor tests and you place so much stock in the tests I'm surprised you should put the Supreme down that far. I think it's far down in your mind * .......like the Bruce. You know Marin I'm absolutely addicted to giving you flack * * .......That's not actually true ..but I would'nt say it's all false either HAHA

PS I've refinished the skylight and have a bow roller a bit bigger.

Eric, when are you going to get a bow pulpit so you have something to hang/lean on with now that you've finished with the nice skylight?


-- Edited by markpierce on Saturday 12th of November 2011 03:49:44 PM

nomadwilly wrote:
*

1. Re your picture ..how can you stand all that forest of tubes and crap ahead of the helmsman. Here's what it should look like. (see pic)

2. That would be 88lbs for you Marin. And that would be in addition to all your chain. You'd probably need special windshield wipers. I

3. I'm surprised you should put the Supreme down that far.

Click to expand...

*1.* I don't even see that stuff when I'm driving.* It's like a hood ornament or the diagonal brace tube across the windshield of a Cessna floatplane.* After the first few minutes you don't even realize it's there.* And I suspect that Plain Jane bow of yours is one reason you cant' seem to find an anchor that works for you.* If you had a pulpit and a proper windlass your anchoring would be a push-button process as it is with most of the rest of us and you could find the best size and weight of anchor, stick it on the bow, and forget about it other than when you used it.

2.* I think you are WAY too hung up on excess weight.* You keep saying a heavy anchor will put the bow of our boat underwater.* So explain this--- when we have friends out on the boat and we are underway there are times when I (aprox 250 lbs), my friend (aprox 250 pounds) his wife (approx 130 pounds, and our dog (50 pounds) are right up on the foredeck looking at something.* So that's 680 pounds that's walked up to the foredeck.* And the effect on the boat?* Nothing.* Sure the bow goes down a bit but not enough to even notice.* When we've had four people on the foredeck at the dock and I've been on the dock and happened to look at the boot stripe to see what all that weight was doing, the difference in trim was the width of the boot stripe, which is four or five inches wide.* No excess weight on the bow, the water is at the* bottom of the boot stripe. Six hundred plus pounds on the bow, the water is almost at the top of the boot stripe.* Big deal.

Other types of boats of a similar size are probably much more susceptible to that kind of extra weight on the bow.* Carey's lobsterboat probably is.* And there may be boats of the same size that are less susceptible.* But a boat like a GB doesn't change much at all.*

So saying that changing from a 40 pound anchor to an 80 pound or even a 100 pound anchor is going to make some sort of huge difference has no logic when putting an additonal 680 pounds of people and dog on the bow doesn't make any perceptible difference in running trim or speed.* I'm not saying the trim isn't altered by having all those folks and a dog up there, I'm saying there is no noticeable difference to anyone on the boat.* The speed doesn't change, no water or spray comes pouring aboard, the bow angle doesn't appear to have budged in relationship to the shoreline or horizon.* Nothing happens.

3.* From all the reviews we read at the time as well as testimonials by people who used the anchors the differences between the Supreme and the Rocna, while not physically very obvious, apparently affected the performance of the anchors.* And according to the reviews and comparisons some of the design features of the Supreme put it at a disadvantage when compared to the Rocna.* As I recall the main disadvantages of the Manson were the designs of the skid plates and the balance of the anchor.*

Perhaps Manson has since changed the design of his anchor--- this was some seven or eight years ago and I have not paid much attention to what the anchor manufacturers have done since then.* But at the time we were looking for something to replace our Bruce the reviews and tests almost always put the Rocna's performance above that of the Manson Supreme.* Not very much above, but somewhat.*

One of the big clinchers for us, however, was the major disadvantage presented by the Manson's shank slot.* Using it runs the risk of backing out your anchor, but having it there makes for a very deep anchor shank since you still need enough metal in the shank to keep it strong PLUS the additional metal to accomdate the slot.* Seemed a pointless excercise to us so we went with the Rocna which at the time was made in New Zealand and Vancouver, BC (ours) so was years before the China debacle.

Were we in the market for an anchor today, I would still proably arrive at the conclusion that the Rocna design was the best all-around, but we would want to make damn sure their manufacturing was up to snuff.* There were no such worries seven-eight years ago.


-- Edited by Marin on Saturday 12th of November 2011 06:45:48 PM

Never.

Willy's got a nice bow and I have no intention of making a mess of it. Nor do I wish to stick on a structure out several feet ahead of my boat just waiting for the wrong moment when I smack it ...probably damaging my boat. If it was a weak link that would snap off before boat damage * ...fine but the anchor jerking on the rode that's attached to the boat will cause quite a problem when it breaks off in a storm. Lastly but most important to me is that I like fwd visibility a lot. So much so that on my previous boat I removed the fwd bow rail as I thought it was ugly and (again most importantly) ruined the view. Here again is what I think the view from the Wheelhouse should look like. No rat's nest on my bow.


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Saturday 12th of November 2011 06:52:15 PM

No question it looks great, Eric. As does your skylight.* (The second picture looks like Von Donop but it proabably isn't). All I'm saying is that the pulpit rail, pulpit, windlass, etc on the front of most boats I don't think is even seen by the person at the helm once they're used to it. Like I said, I don't even notice it's there unless I look at a photo like the one I posted. Then it's almost an "Oh, that's what it looks like up there" kind of thing.* It's all what you get used to.

When I started flying floatplanes I flew Cessnas at first and they all have thick black torque tubes running diagonally across the windshield in front of the pilot and passenger.* This is part of the float kit---it's not needed on wheelplanes.* When I first saw it a foot or so in front of my face I wondered how the hell I was going to able to judge anthing out the windshield and I worried about it quite a bit.* On my first lesson it bugged the heck out of me during taxi out and takoff.* Then I started getting absorbed in the lesson and I suddetly realized about 30 minutes in that I wasn't even aware of the tube anymore.

The stuff on the bow is the same.* I don't even see it anymore.

Also a couple of the "tubes" in my photo are actually our anchor trip line which we leave rigged when we're just moving from one anchorage to anohther as we were when the photo was taken.* So even if I did notice the stuff in front or me, it normally wouldn't be quite as cluttered as it appears here.





-- Edited by Marin on Saturday 12th of November 2011 06:57:40 PM