Bye Bye XYZ

Met a fellow a few days ago and he just had to have my XYZ. I figured I could buy a new tip piece and have a new one w the parts I have here so I sold him the XYZ. BUT the XYZ guy dos'nt make them anymore. He makes high end SS anchors only. So I'm out of the XYZ business. On the trip south I'll have my Manson Supreme, the old original XYZ (mud anchor), two Danforths and possibly a claw. The Danforth is the only one I wo'nt have to dig out of the hold so it may get lots of use.
Something that occurred to me and and got confirmed for me by someone that should know is that the roll bar anchors may have a flaw. When one gets them buried down far enough the drag of the high mounted roll bar should pitch them up preventing them from burying any further. However most anchors (unless the bottom is very soft) should'nt bury much further than that because the anchor would then be required to pull the chain down. As it's dragged along the chain of course will want to come up out of the bottom even if it's at 100-1 scope. So on most all typical (or all) bottoms most all anchors probably wo'nt bury much anyway. Perhaps that explains why the Danforth anchors work so well. They do'nt really need to be very deep to hold really well. I think I'll need to throw the anchor tests out to get my anchoring philosophy where it wants to go. Is that objective? The tests mostly say the Danforths hardly work at all and the roll bar guys are champs. Dos'nt make sense. Do you guys believe the tests?

The roll bar has nothing to do with the actual setting of the anchor. The only function of the roll bar is to ensure that the anchor always ends up on its side so that the fluke will slice down into the bottom like a knife blade when pull is applied to the shank by the rode. The rollbar also assists the skid plates on the side of the anchor (at least on a Rocna) in acting as a fulcrum to help increase the slicing force of the fluke.

Once the fluke slices in its shape and the shape and angle of the shank turns the anchor so the fluke fully opposes the direction of pull at which point it begins to bury itself deeper into the bottom. The rollbar plays no function in this part of the setting process.

Logic would indicate that the rollbar should actually hinder the movement of the fluke down into the bottom if the fluke penetrates deep enough. But it doesn't seem to have any negative effect on the anchor's ability to dig in sufficiently to hold the boat. And underwater videos show these anchors buried in sand and mud much deeper than the height of the rollbar. The anchor is essentially invisible---- there's just the chain leading to where it is.

The above applies to all the rollbar anchors--- Sarca, Rocna, Manson, and Bugel. They all use the same basic principle with regards to the rollbar, which I believe made its first appearance on a production anchor with the Bugel. At least that's the anchor Peter Smith says he got the idea from to use a rollbar on the anchor he was designing for his own boat which eventually became the Rocna.

Hi Marin,
1st paragraph:
"The roll bar has nothing to do with the actual setting of the anchor." Of course it does. It insures the anchor fluke is presented to the bottom.
"The only function of the roll bar is to ensure that the anchor always ends up on its side so that the fluke will slice down into the bottom like a knife blade when pull is applied to the shank by the rode." Actually the roll bar is'nt involved angling the fluke tip down toward the bottom. Little ramp like wedges where the roll bar is attached does this. It's the same on Danforths. And my Supreme shares the same structure and geometry. But I did'nt say anything about the setting of the roll bar anchors .....only about the effect the roll bar has on pitch. If you attach a parachute to the top of a "T" tail airplane it would obviously pitch it up and the drag of the top of the roll bar should do the same to the roll bar anchors. "The rollbar plays no function in this part of the setting process." There again I did'nt say anything about setting. But the anchors do set well w enough scope and I do'nt think setting performance is in question. " And underwater videos show these anchors buried in sand and mud much deeper than the height of the rollbar." How can you know they are buried deep if you can't even see them? They obviously are below the top of the roll bar but (a) that seems to be as far as they need to bury and (b) it's unlikely they should bury deeper. But I suspect they do'nt bury completely in most bottoms. So I suspect they are essentially a dragging anchor that drags slow enough that anchor performance is considered good to excellent. I've seen video's of roll bar anchors buried 1/2 to 3/4ths of the way making a terrible mess of the bottom but probably holding the boat just fine. Would you like to answer some of the questions I asked? I assume you believe the anchor tests as they support the anchor you have and you have unfailing and steadfast support for this anchor. If it was'nt for the anchor tests I would have bought a Rocna myself.

The rollbar positions the anchor for setting so in that regard you're right, it does play a role in the overall setting process. But once the fluke has started to knife down into the bottom the rollbar has no role after that.

However on the Rocna at least, the rollbar does contribute to the ability of the fluke to knife into the bottom more effectively because of where the bases of the rollbar are attached to the side of the anchor. They add some resistance at the fulcrum of the pivot and so increase somewhat the downward knifing force of the fluke.

I know how deep the anchors buried themselves in the videos I've seen because divers come and dig them out in front of the camera. Also I recall there is a similar scene in Rocna's beach test video where their anchor buries itself out of sight in the sand and a couple of guys come and dig it out in front of the camera.

We actually did not read any anchor tests when determining the best anchor to replace our Bruce. We used manufacturers' information/explanations/claims/videos to arrive at our short list of anchors that made the most sense (some didn't make any sense). But once we had narrowed our choice to two or three we then used user testimonials to make our final decision.

I don't think I've ever actually looked at an anchor test to see how the Rocna (or any other "new generation" anchor) performs. Anchoring has an almost infinite number of variables but an anchor test duplicates only one condition. And you can set up an anchor test to prove whatever it is that you want to prove. So I don't put too much stock in them.

We did look at anchor tests prior to our buying the Bruce, so we knew going in that it was (and is) rated as being at or near the bottom of the list in terms of holding power. But we didnt' think that would matter much in our "protected" waters, so we were more interested in the ability of an anchor to set in a variety of bottoms. For this, the Bruce has a good reputation and ours performed as advertised. But when holding power became important the Bruce was the wrong anchor to have.

So I can't tell you if the proven performance of the Rocna and the other rollbar anchors is supported by anchor tests or not. And I don't really care for the reasons stated above. What I am interested in is how an anchor is performing for users in as wide a variety of conditions and locations as possible. And it is there that the rollbar anchors are, in my opinion, superior to everything else out there on an all-round basis. When I read dozens of testimonials from blue-water sailors in the southwestern Pacific, Mediterranean, and Indian oceans about how well their rollbar anchors have done in open, exposed, windy, rough anchorages I figure if the anchor works well for all those folks under those conditions it's going to work just great for us up here.

Anchoring in waters where the tidal current changes 180 degrees several times a day, an anchor that resets itself or stays set regardless is to be treasured. The Bruce/Claw does this well. Perhaps a storm anchor (with maximum holding power) or lunch hook (where one has low expectations) doesn't need or have that capability.

markpierce said:

Anchoring in waters where the tidal current changes 180 degrees several times a day, an anchor that resets itself or stays set regardless is to be treasured. The Bruce/Claw does this well.

Click to expand...

So do the rollbar anchors. And they don't have the poor holding power of the Bruce/Claw. So a far better deal to my way of thinking. An anchor that sets and resets well is of little value if it won't hold when I need it to hold. That's why our Bruce is propping open a door in our garage and a rollbar anchor is on our bow pulpit

Marin, fortunately, the thick, sticky mud of the San Francisco estuary hardly challenges the holding power of a Bruce/Claw despite strong winds and currents.

Do you guys believe the tests?

Sure , the tester found a bottom where his product works and the competition doesnt.

I was sent a DVD where the "test" showed a std CQR just sliding on hard sand ,
but the companies look alike dug right in.

" Nothing in the hand , nothing up the sleive" keep your eye in the walnut shell.

FF

FF said:

Do you guys believe the tests?

Sure , the tester found a bottom where his product works and the competition doesnt.

I was sent a DVD where the "test" showed a std CQR just sliding on hard sand ,
but the companies look alike dug right in.

" Nothing in the hand , nothing up the sleive" keep your eye in the walnut shell.

FF

Click to expand...

Very common to devise a test to filter out the competition. Happens all the time with probably every product imaginable. Seen it and done is hundreds of times in my engineering carreer.

jleonard, FF,
When you see anchors come along that perform (in tests) 10 to 20 times as good as the most popular anchors of all time one needs to be more than suspicious. The claws and Danforths have been doing a good to excellent job w most all boaters for many decades so how could any other anchor or anchors do 10 times as good. just dos'nt make sense. The testers said of several anchors that they could'nt even get these anchors to set but hundreds of thousands of boaters do it all the time. I've never failed to get a Danforth or a claw to set on any bottom. And of course somebody said this but Marin would have been just as safe if he'd just got a 44lb claw. His claw that draged was 33 lbs. A 12 lb claw on Willy would be equivalent to the 33lb claw on the 36 GB. Would any of you recommend a 12 lb claw for me? Thats 909 lbs of boat for every pound of anchor. If I had a 12 lb claw I'd have the same boat weight per pound of anchor as Marin did w his 33 lb claw. If I had an anchor increase the same as Marin going to a 44 lb anchor I'd need to go to a 16 lb claw. Perhaps I'll get a 22 lb claw. That would be the equivalent of Marin going to about a 55 to 60 lb anchor. That should keep me in one spot. Seems to me Richard Cook had a 16 lb claw and then went to a Rocna. If the claw performed well enough and he thought the Rocna you'd think he'd get a smaller one ...say 12 lbs. If somebody did that over a period of several years I'd be convinced that at least they thought the new anchors were better. Especially if they performed better. So Mark, what's your displacement and anchor weight? How often do you need to clean off your anchor in the Delta area? On my trip south I think I'll limit my anchoring to the Danforths and the claw. But if Marin (and the anchor tests) are right about the claw's poor holding power I'll bet it's caused by the claw anchor setting on only two of the three flukes. Just think'in

manyboats said:

jleonard, FF,
When you see anchors come along that perform (in tests) 10 to 20 times as good as the most popular anchors of all time one needs to be more than suspicious. The claws and Danforths have been doing a good to excellent job w most all boaters for many decades so how could any other anchor or anchors do 10 times as good. just dos'nt make sense. The testers said of several anchors that they could'nt even get these anchors to set but hundreds of thousands of boaters do it all the time. I've never failed to get a Danforth or a claw to set on any bottom. And of course somebody said this but Marin would have been just as safe if he'd just got a 44lb claw. His claw that draged was 33 lbs. A 12 lb claw on Willy would be equivalent to the 33lb claw on the 36 GB. Would any of you recommend a 12 lb claw for me? Thats 909 lbs of boat for every pound of anchor. If I had a 12 lb claw I'd have the same boat weight per pound of anchor as Marin did w his 33 lb claw. If I had an anchor increase the same as Marin going to a 44 lb anchor I'd need to go to a 16 lb claw. Perhaps I'll get a 22 lb claw. That would be the equivalent of Marin going to about a 55 to 60 lb anchor. That should keep me in one spot. Seems to me Richard Cook had a 16 lb claw and then went to a Rocna. If the claw performed well enough and he thought the Rocna you'd think he'd get a smaller one ...say 12 lbs. If somebody did that over a period of several years I'd be convinced that at least they thought the new anchors were better. Especially if they performed better. So Mark, what's your displacement and anchor weight? How often do you need to clean off your anchor in the Delta area? On my trip south I think I'll limit my anchoring to the Danforths and the claw. But if Marin (and the anchor tests) are right about the claw's poor holding power I'll bet it's caused by the claw anchor setting on only two of the three flukes. Just think'in

Click to expand...

Maybe some of us don't believe any test definitively shows ANY anchor to perform better than slightly more than others perform...sure...a fortress properly set in med sand blows everything else away...but when you need to get one to set and a oyster shell has jambed the flukes...it won't hold a hummingbird.

You say..." I've never failed to get a Danforth or a claw to set on any bottom." Is that the first or second time or did you have to work at it a bit. If you say you got a Danforth to catch on a variety of bottoms first or second try EVERY time...well I'll be the first to raise the Bullshi* flag on that one. On REALLY hard sand or oyster shell or really weedy bottoms...you're lucky to get a Danforth to set at all. I used to sharpen my danforths to needle points to handle those situations. Then they would rust and break off.

Most of us just want an anchor to drop and forget after we take a minimal amount of time to set it correctly. It's been said that for some boats, some boaters and some conditions any anchor will work and that we are all comfortable with out set ups. To say any anchor is 10X better than the next is a pope dream because there no one answer and certainly no set of tests that I have seen and trust that leaves any anchor that far out in front of the pack.

=manyboats;83490]but Marin would have been just as safe if he'd just got a 44lb claw.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with you except that in talking to people with boats exactly like ours or in the same size and weight range as ours who DO have 44# Bruce anchors they said they had the same poor holding issues as we had with our 33# Bruce. Our first inclination after our major problem with the Bruce was to get a larger one. But in talking to people who had/have larger ones, we learned they were just as crappy in terms of holding power as the one we had. Which in turn prompted me to do some reading about the Bruce and the claw in general that led to my belief that it's a great anchor when it's super heavy--- like tons heavy--- but the design doesn't scale down effectively. So in sizes that would fit our boat it's a lousy anchor if you want to stay put in a blow. I know tons of people have had great success with a Bruce, but you always have great success with something until the day it fails you.

So at that point we abandonned the Bruce concept altogether and went looking for something better. Interestingly enough, some of those people with the 44-pounders we talked to back then have since done the same thing. Some got rollbar anchors, some changed to a different "conventional" design.

So I don't think a 44# Bruce or even a 55# Bruce or whatever would have made a lick of difference in the situations where we had it drag, particularly the last one. It's a lousy design for holding under pressure in the sizes our boat can accomodate and in that respect it had to go. Which it did.

manyboats said:

So Mark, what's your displacement and anchor weight? How often do you need to clean off your anchor in the Delta area? On my trip south I think I'll limit my anchoring to the Danforths and the claw. But if Marin (and the anchor tests) are right about the claw's poor holding power I'll bet it's caused by the claw anchor setting on only two of the three flukes. Just think'in

Click to expand...

My 20 kilogram Bruce/Claw holds the 14-ton Coot just fine, despite strong-tide reversals in the SF estuarian waters. The boat was to come standard-equipped with a Danforth type, but due to my frequently-posted dislikes of that anchor and previous exerience with the Bruce, I had the Bruce substitute.

I use a fresh-water faucet on the foredeck (with the addition of hose) to wash chain and anchor.

psneeld,
Here is the test I was thinking about.
[URL="http://https://www.marinestor...categorien/33/MBM Club ankertest mei 2007.pdf[/url]
I've got a confession to make. I probably not anchored a boat more than 100 times in my life. Many boaters, especially on this forum have much more practical experience than I. With my Bruce I had to drag it some to hook up and I do'nt remember a breakout. With the Danforths I do'nt remember anything but flawless performance. On a small river delta in rocky pass I could'nt set my XYZ or a 25 lb Forfjord. My 14 lb Danforth hooked right up. I may have had troubles in the distant past but I do'nt remember. No BS though. Just less experience than you probably presumed and I spoze I should have mentioned that up front.
The test says we're absolute fools to have any of the first 4 anchors in the test and really smart guys to have the last four. In the real world there just can't be that much difference. Then there's that Smith guy down at the bottom of the page ........Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

My experience with the Bruce has been different than Marin's. I have a 25/30,000lb 37ft Tiawan trawler with a 44 Genuine Bruce. I have anchored in the PNW from Seattle into SE Alaska. It has never failed to set and hold. The Bruce sets on a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 scope, then I let out the rest of the scope to 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 and back down again till the boat stops. If wind is expected I use more scope with a bridle.

I have used Genuine Bruce anchors since 1988 with my sailboat small powerboat and my trawler. No failures.

That is until three years ago, when I scooped up a rock in the Bruce during recovery. It filled the 'basket' of the anchor and needed some gymnastics to dump the rock. I continued to use ole' Bruce till two years ago when I caught a really big rock between the fluke and shank. This monster was too large to hoist above the water, so I motored slowly to a dock and with help swung the anchor and rock up onto the dock. With help we pried the rock out of the anchor and dumped it over the side into 30ft of water. To me this is the main weakness of a Bruce. After two 'taps on the shoulder' I listened! All my Bruce anchors have been the forged steel Genuine Bruce, I don't trust the cast replicas from China.

I have now replaced ole' Bruce with a 44 lb Delta. The Delta cannot pick up rocks like the Bruce (I hope). I may however upgrade to a 55lb Delta. The Delta works and sets fine, but its long term performance for me is still under test.

Ah, the art of anchoring! Use a big one, set well, and sleep thru the night, that my goal!

Thanks Larry for joining us. I've heard often (even from an anchor manufacturer) that the Bruce performs well at short scope. Do you suppose setting the Bruce at short scope helps to get all three flukes buried? I suspect the Bruce may do better setting right side up. Have you had any experience at short scope w the Delta? Does the fluke readily set? Do you think the point on the fluke is sharp enough?
By the time we get back down you'll probably be back "up".

Mark,
Thanks, I'll bet the 45lb claw ought to work fine in the delta. I like the colors in your picture.

Our Bruce was a genuine Bruce, too. The former Seattle-area distributor for Bruce anchors, Bob Hale (of Waggoner Cruising Guide fame) once told me that the subtle differences between a genuine Bruce and the knockoffs being made at that time made a significant difference in the performance of the anchor.

I have no idea if that is accurate or not. But while we never experienced the rock problem Larry describes, the anchor's poor holding power let us down one too many times so we changed anchors. I was impressed by the Bruce's ability to set in a variety of bottoms and in that regard it performed as advertised. But in anything other than dense, sticky mud the anchor simply didn't have the reliable holding power we wanted. Granted a lot of anchorages around here have dense, sticky mud bottoms. But we've encoutered some that don't and that's when the Bruce was reluctant to stay put even with a 7:1 or 8:1 all-chain scope. We won't use something we don't trust so we gave up on it.

We'd carry it as a spare anchor but it's too difficult to stow. So we use a big Fortress instead.

Larry H said:

Ah, the art of anchoring! Use a big one, set well, and sleep thru the night, that my goal!

Click to expand...

Then get a rollbar anchor Think about it--- like the CQR, the flukes on the Delta are streamlined in the direction of pull. Like a plow that digs furrows for the farm guy. Anything shaped to move through the earth when pulled doesn't seem like a good solution to me for something that's not suppose to move through the earth when pulled, even if the flukes are shaped to theoretically make it dive deeper and dig in. In the soft stuff I suspect those plow anchors dig something you could plant corn in.

Eric,

Setting a Bruce on short scope lets you know that the anchor is set where you put it down, and then letting out more rode and pulling it straight lets you know your final swinging circle. I always mark the anchor drop on the GPS so I know where and in what direction the anchor lies. I don't want to drop too much chain before setting and possibly fowling the hook with the chain.

I haven't anchored enough with the Delta to know much about it. So far, it works and has set every time.

Marin,

The Delta is a plow and the point is shaped like one, but it has 'ears' that stick out at a flatter angle than the CQR. I am waiting on the shovel or roll bar anchors to prove out for a while. I was not impressed with the Rocna steel problem.

I think that for secure anchoring bigger is better up to the point where the boat can't carry the weight on the bow or power astern enough to set the hook. I know of a 39ft Krogen that uses a 110lb Bruce! Alec always knows his boat will still be in the same place he anchored it! Fishing boats in Alaska use anchors much larger than yachts, with very large chain on reel winches. They know they may have to anchor in very marginal situations and still be safe, so they use anchor overkill.

Eric,
We will be in the Broughton Island area this summer. Stay in touch as you can online and maybe we can get together.

Larry H said:

I am waiting on the shovel or roll bar anchors to prove out for a while. I was not impressed with the Rocna steel problem.

Click to expand...

The rollbar anchors have been around for a long, long time now, starting with the Bugel. From the user testimonials we read while researching a Bruce replacement the rollbar anchors have racked up a more impressive success rate than any other anchor type we read about, particularly among the open ocean cruising bunch, power and sail.

I wasn't impressed by Rocna's steel problem either. I'm not sure I'd buy one today without doing a lot of research into their current production methods. Too bad as I am convinced it is the best all-around small boat anchor design in existence today. Fortunately we bought ours some eight years ago, long before the Chinese steel debacle, and it's made out of what it's supposed to be made of. In our experience so far it sets so fast and so solidly it yaws the boat around when the slack comes out of the chain as we drift back to set it. The Bruce set was like mush by comparison.

Most of us just want an anchor to drop and forget after we take a minimal amount of time to set it correctly.

1/5 the boats weight in steel should come close.

We haven't tried our new 80 KILOGRAM UK Bruce yet ,
but expect it to come close to the dream of drop and forget.

FF

FF said:

Do you guys believe the tests?

Sure , the tester found a bottom where his product works and the competition doesnt.

I was sent a DVD where the "test" showed a std CQR just sliding on hard sand ,
but the companies look alike dug right in.

" Nothing in the hand , nothing up the sleive" keep your eye in the walnut shell.

FF

Click to expand...

Oh, so you did get it FF. You might at least have said when I asked. Well you've asked for this. You might at least be honest and admit the CQR bounced across the surface and failed to set because of that hinged shank, unique to that type, and its main weakness. Whereas the manufacturers 'look-alike', as you put it, is nothing like it, except for the convex fluke shape, no hinge in the shank, and buried immediately in minimal distance in exactly the same substrate. Explain how that is sleight of hand.

I have found in my downloads an anchor test that tested the West Marine's Danforth Deep Set II above the Rocna. The Danforth even weighed about 5 lbs less. But I've probably been a little too hard on the Rocna and it's design because I detest that Smith guy so much. I will take my Manson w me when we go south. I'm anxious to hear Larry's continued evaluation.
Peter has anybody ever welded the joint together on the CQR to see if the anchor works without it? I think it would be even worse in that the long heavy shank would prolly tip the fluke tip up where it could'nt engage the bottom. Never have liked those things anyway.
Reflecting on some of my latest posts I see quite a lot of subjectivity. Shame on me. I think it's better coming from me though.
FF, "1/5 the boats weight in steel should come close."A concrete pier block would do. That would be a 3000# anchor for Willy. Yup should work.

manyboats said:

Reflecting on some of my latest posts I see quite a lot of subjectivity. Shame on me.

Click to expand...

EVERYTHING to do with boats (and cars and planes and horses and....) is subjective. From the hull shape you choose to the kind of engine you install to the type of anchor you like. Sure, there are all sorts of numbers and formulas and test results that can assist you in your decisions and there are some rules of physics and hydrodymanics and aerodynamics that are foolish to break, but in the end it all comes down to what YOU like.

The 787 as originally conceived was a gorgeous airplane. I don't have a picture handy to illustrate what the 7E7 as it was called then was going to look like but it was spectacular to say the least. The closest thing I can use to describe the shape of the plane is a dolphin. I built a whole marketing film for the plane around this analogy. That shape is what the marketing people and the sales people and anyone with a creative bone in their body wanted. It would have been a brand manager's dream come true. Everyone on the planet would have recognized it instantly and wanted to fly on it just because of the way it was going to look.

But it was a very subjective design.

Then the engineers got involved and they were subjective, too, from their perspective. One by one they tossed out all the beautiful stuff and substituted really boring stuff (but for good engineering reasons). So today, with the exception of the wings, the 787 is a just another ho-hum jet design, sort of like a Honda is like a BMW is like a Lexus is like a Ford is like a.....

If subjectivity wasn't a factor in your beliefs, opinions, and statements, Eric, I'd be worried about you. You'd be robot-man. Anyone who thinks design engineers aren't subjective, opinionated, creative people, think again. I once had a long conversation about this very thing with Alan Mulally when he was the chief engineer of Boeing Commercial Airplanes before he became CEO of that division. And that was our conclusion--- that design engineers are every bit as creative as artists, musicians, and writers. They express their creativity in ways that might seem the very antithesis to what other people think defines creativity, but they are very creative nevertheless. And subjective. If they weren't Alan said, they'd be lousy engineers and he wouldn't want them on his team.

So don't apologize for your subjectivity, Eric. It's what makes you unique and what makes your posts, complete with their opinions and philosophies, worth reading regardless if I agree with them or not. If you weren't this way, I'd skip over everything you say here.

OK Marin,
Looks like ther'es hope for me after all. I'll make sure I keep my subjective element alive. And I'm glad you read my posts and I reciprocate.
Marin writes "Anything shaped to move through the earth when pulled doesn't seem like a good solution to me for something that's not suppose to move through the earth when pulled, even if the flukes are shaped to theoretically make it dive deeper and dig in. In the soft stuff I suspect those plow anchors dig something you could plant corn in."
I think the Delta would bury as deep as most any anchor and an anchor buried deep is going to be more effective. here's some possible subjectivity. I like the Delta. It looks like it would bury deep and it has ears just the right size and shape/angle to provide a surface to pull against. But it may need more scope like I think Rocna's do for the same reason. When the anchor is set the shank to fluke angle probably determines the lowest scope the anchor will perform at. Make the angle wider and short scope is good but since the anchor is dependent on being on it's side while setting it's setting performance requires a narrower S/F angle. Imagine a Delta on it's side being dragged along w a narrow S/F angle. It seems to me it should set very quickly as the angle of the fluke should be more parallel to the direction of travel over the bottom while being dragged (set). If the S/F angle is wide the fluke will be moving across the bottom closer to sideways and closer to being at right angles to the travel of the fluke over the bottom. Moving more sideways should make the anchor more reluctant to set. For a roll bar anchor I like the Supreme in that I think it has a wider F/S angle and better short scope performance. And I think it's short scope performance should be better w the rode attached to the slot ...not the round hole. This should give a little greater S/F angle. But the anchor probably does not set as well there due to a higher S/F angle. But if it sets good and dependently there (hooked to the slot end) I'll keep using it there. If any Supreme owners/users has any experience to bear this out I'd like to know what has been observed. For or because of the shank angle dilemma described above I am a bit sceptical of the desirability of designing anchors that need to set laying on their side. One simply can't optimize the shank to fluke angle for both setting and holding power over a wide range of scope ratios.

Eric--- If you look at a rollbar anchor from the side--- and I can only relate to the Rocna on this since that's what we have--- the fluke is at quite an angle to the shank, much more so than on our previous Bruce or anchors like the CQR or Danforth. So I would think this would encourage the anchor to dig in deep, which is what it seems to do based on the videos and photos I've seen.

So even though it starts out on its side, once the fluke has knifed down into the bottom and begins to turn to present the whole face of the fluke toward the direction of pull, that fluke to shank angle is going to encourage it to head down at a much sharper angle than, say, our Bruce.

I assume this is why when we set the Rocna it stops the boat's rearward movement with not a jolt but a definite positive stop that's firm enough most of the time to yaw the boat around a bit. I had read about this characteristic before we bought the anchor and it seems that the people describing it were right.

I would assume the same is true of the other rollbar anchors if their fluke to shank angles are as large as the Rocna's.

Well you've asked for this. You might at least be honest and admit the CQR bounced across the surface and failed to set because of that hinged shank, unique to that type, and its main weakness. Whereas the manufacturers 'look-alike', as you put it, is nothing like it, except for the convex fluke shape, no hinge in the shank, and buried immediately in minimal distance in exactly the same substrate. Explain how that is sleight of hand."

sleight of hand." or selected setting field.?

AS CQR are highly regarded , round the world for decades, and is NOT known for not setting , My guess is the flat hard bottom and tiny scope does not allow the antique CQR to do what it normally does , set.

Anyone that wants to see this video, I will pass on the advertising special via Snail mail.

FF

Yes, please FF - do pass it on. Eric, I suggest you PM FF with your postal address and have him send it to you. I honestly think you would find it interesting, and about as fair a comparative anchor testing method as it is possible to get. I'll gladly send you a spare from here if someone else has nabbed it from FF before you get in line, and he has sent it to someone else. Although done on wet tidal flat to make it doable, I do think the results would translate pretty closely to real live seabed conditions. Pivotting the draw bar centrally, with the test anchors lead from each opposite end, does surely comprise as accurate a direct comparison of setting distance, character and depth and hold as one could get. Anybody else wants one, PM me. Eric, I think you'd be intrigued - I suggest you PM FF your address now. I would really appreciate your 'subjective' assessment on its merits so I can see if my impression is a balanced one or whether I have missed some catch and am deluded...?

Peter B said:

Yes, please FF - do pass it on. Eric, I suggest you PM FF with your postal address and have him send it to you. I honestly think you would find it interesting, and about as fair a comparative anchor testing method as it is possible to get. I'll gladly send you a spare from here if someone else has nabbed it from FF before you get in line, and he has sent it to someone else. Although done on wet tidal flat to make it doable, I do think the results would translate pretty closely to real live seabed conditions. Pivotting the draw bar centrally, with the test anchors lead from each opposite end, does surely comprise as accurate a direct comparison of setting distance, character and depth and hold as one could get. Anybody else wants one, PM me. Eric, I think you'd be intrigued - I suggest you PM FF your address now. I would really appreciate your 'subjective' assessment on its merits so I can see if my impression is a balanced one or whether I have missed some catch and am deluded...?

Click to expand...

Wet..or was a layer of water covering the flat?

Wet and underwater are 2 totally different animals.

psneeld,
I agree w you completely. Drag'in anchors around on beaches serves no objective purpose whatever ....just interesting to watch. And pulling anchors FROM the beach in the water is done at a scope that almost no anchoring situation can duplicate so not much learned there either Too many variables. Anchors probably float to some degree and sand/mud probably reacts differently under water than in the air on a beach.
Also the CQR anchor is an anchor that I have almost no interest in at all and I can't even say why. I'll PM Fred and ask him what this is all about. Ther'es a retired fisherman here in Thorne Bay that has a big CQR and a hydraulic reel winch. Never talked to him about anchors. Re the CQR it dos'nt even occur to me to say anything. If you-all can imagine me in such a state. For all I know the CQR could be a decent anchor but I subjectively think the odds of that being true is about 500-1. I don't think I've ever said anything about them before.
Peter wrote " Although done on wet tidal flat to make it doable, I do think the results would translate pretty closely to real live seabed conditions." I think "real live sea bed conditions" aren't that difficult to arrange so why hold much stock in "simulations".
FF wrote "AS CQR are highly regarded , round the world for decades, and is NOT known for not setting , My guess is the flat hard bottom and tiny scope does not allow the antique CQR to do what it normally does , set." Sounds like something I'd say about a Danforth or claw. I suspect that newer anchors are actually better than old anchors as Marin has said jillions of times but I think how much better and in what way is way out of focus in this present spot of time. Kinda like the wood boat thing. Some people think if they buy a wood boat and step aboard they'll fall through it and into the sea. Seems to me that if you've got the right balance between fiction and fact a close resemblance of objectivity may result. Is anybody objective? Of course not. Is anybody subjective? Of course. All of us are are. Wer'e subject to the human brain always and facts are always before us so we all exist in a state of subjectivity and objectivity always so in my quest to be more objective I'll PM Fred and see what he's got.