The 5 most useful improvements on your boat

[skipperdude]

The Australian SARCA (An acronym for Sand And Reef Combination Anchor.)Is essentially a highly modified plow anchor with a convex fluke.
The Rocna Is called a Roll-Bar Anchor The first conceived was the Bugel, by German inventor Rolf Kaczirek. The Rocna combines the Bugel's roll bar with the spade's concave fluke.
The Ronca's shank is similar to that of the Delta,but its inside profile is slightly different in that THE CROWN SECTION CREATES A TIGHT ANGLE AGAINST YOUR BOAT'S BOW ROLLER. tHIS IS INTENDED TO INSURE A SNUG SEAT ON THE ROLLER AND PREVENT MOVEMENT AT SEA. You need an anchor that will stay put on the boat in the roller where it belongs.
*I find the Spade to be superior due to the heavely ballasted tip. 48% of the anchors weight is in the tip.
Thats just me,

[Marin]

sunchaser wrote:


So I have it clear though, you went from a 33# Bruce to a 44# Rocna. By my math that is a 33% increase in weight. Yup, I can believe your*heavier Rocna*anchor is performing better than the lighter Bruce.

That would be the case if I was the only example here.* But in the*course of learning about anchors I talked to people who have the same boat we do but with a 20kg (44#) Bruce and they said they*had as much trouble with it as we did with our 15 kg Bruce.* So I don't belive the fact that our Rocna is eleven pounds heavier has anything to do with its vastly superior performance, not just in holding power but in the speed of setting.*

Based on what we've learned from talking to other boaters and some of the things I've read, I believe*the Bruce has lousy holding performance because of its basic design.* Sure, a 66 pound**Bruce on a 25'*low-profile boat would probably do pretty good for the same reason using an old pickup*as an anchor would work good, too.*

I believe that the Bruce's poor holding power--- regardless of its weight--- is because its design is not ideal for a small anchor.

I believe the much*larger fluke size of the Rocna plays a major role in its performance, as does it's shape, the angle that it assumes in the bottom under load, and so on.* I believe the eleven pound weight increase in our Rocna is virtually irrlelevant when comparing its holding*performance to our Bruce.

Incidentally, when talking to Rocna about what model would be the best for our boat, they said that their sizing recommendations are based on worst-case scenarios (not counting hurricanes and such)*rather than the average conditions most other anchor manufacturers use for their sizing charts.* Which is why when I asked them if I should go to the next size larger Rocna than the 20 just to be safe, they said that while they'd be happy to take my money for the larger anchor, the Rocna 20 for our boat was, in effect, already the "next size larger" than what would be recommended for "normal" anchoring situations for our boat.

So we went with their recommendation, which was good since the next size larger would not have fit on our pulpit.

-- Edited by Marin on Friday 14th of May 2010 04:35:42 PM

[Marin]

skipperdude wrote:

*I find the Spade to be superior due to the heavely ballasted tip. 48% of the anchors weight is in the tip.

On the other hand, Peter Smith, the designer of the Rocna, believes having to have a lot of weight in the tip to make the anchor work is a major drawback.* Which is why he says he deliberately designed his anchor to have no added weight in the tip.* So different strokes for different designers.

Also, a Rocna does not sit snugly on the pulpit.* If it had its way, it would deploy the instant you took your hand off of it.* Unlike the Bruce, CQR, etc. Smith designed the Rocna to be self-deploying from a typical pulpit.* As such, it sits with the shank in the air on the bow pulpit with the fluke trying to pull it off the boat (see my earlier attached photo).* As such, it requires a hold-back line or some other preventer device to keep it from zipping off the bow roller.* Also, because the only part of the anchor touching the boat is the bit of the shank that's*resting on the bow roller, the anchor will yaw from side to side unless some sort of restraint is applied.* We use a simple bungee wrapped around the pulpit with each end hooked to the shackle that fastens the chain to the shank, but one could come up with a*fancier fitting bolted to the pulpit to secure the shank.

On our pulpit the shank of the Bruce lay in the bronze pulpit channel which kept it from moving about, but to deploy it I had to shove the anchor forward until there was more weight forward of the bow roller.* I don't have to touch the Rocna to deploy it.

-- Edited by Marin on Friday 14th of May 2010 04:38:41 PM

[Baker]

Happy Bruce user here as well. I had a 33lb on my Prairie 29. It always held. It was slightly oversized but I did that on purpose. It came with a 15 pounder and I got rid of it immediately. I use a 33 pounder on the even lighter Mainship 30 and certainly less windage. I reckon If I had a 40 something footer I would likely be looking at something else. Nobody has mentioned the SUpermax here.....that is a pretty wicked anchor!!!

[Marin]

Over the years I've seen good comments about the Supermax on the T&T list. I seem to recall most of the users were from the east--- ICW and Forida cruisers and Gulf and river cruisers. This may be just coincidence, bad memory on my part, or perhaps the Supermax has a more obvious market presence in these areas. I've not seen one on a boat out here, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

The Supermax was one of the anchors mentioned in the original query on the GB Owners forum that got us looking at "new generation" anchors in general. We didn't investigate it much because once we looked at the Rocna that began looking like the type of anchor we were after.

With a few exceptions, every anchor type will work well under the right conditions and drag or have setting problems under the wrong conditions. I don't believe the Rocna is a magic bullet. I know people who have used Bruce anchors for decades, had no problems, and swear by them. Same with the CQR. I'm not about to say these people have been doing it wrong all this time. If somebody's been using a cinder block on a length of rope for years with zero problems, then that's obviously been the right anchor for them to have been using.

My comments have been specifically about our own experience and what we decided to do about it. I believe the Rocna design greatly reduces the risk of dragging and unsetting, but I don't believe it makes it impossible.

The fellow in the slip across from us has been sailing almost longer than I've been on the planet. His sloop has a CQR on it. As a retired marine engineer, he's been of great help on projects like mounting our new anchor windlass and whatnot, so when we started our search for a Bruce replacement, I asked him why the CQR seems to be the most popular anchor in the PNW among sailboaters. (The Bruce is currently the most popular among powerboaters.) His answer surprised me. He said it was because it was the first anchor design to come along that stowed well on the bow of a sailboat.

I asked him what he thought of the CQR as an anchor and he said that he likes the way it stows and for the most part he's had good success with it in terms of setting and holding.* He also said that over the years it's proved drag-prone in certain bottoms and under higher pressures.* However, in his view this is just "part of boating" and that standing an anchor watch in stormy condtions and being ready to pay out more rode, drop another anchor, or simply up and leave are all just part of the overall challenge of boating.

I asked him if he's ever considered changing anchor types, and he said "To what?" He feels the Bruce is an inherently bad design, a Danforth, Navy, etc. won't stow well on the bow of his boat, and new generation anchors like the Rocna won't stow well, either. So to him, the CQR is the best anchor to use with his boat in the places he goes.




-- Edited by Marin on Friday 14th of May 2010 06:25:00 PM

[Keith]

Always depends on the bottom. Around here we're in mud all the time, so Fortress and other Danforths work well. Spade works good too, which is now my primary anchor, but takes a bit longer to set. Bruce isn't worth a **** in mud.

[Forkliftt]

Our Fortress stows great under the bed. But for an overnight it is the one we drop down.

[BaltimoreLurker]

ARoss wrote:I will be on the boat in the next couple of days and will try to remeber to get a few more detailed pics which might help.


good luck, Al

Al:

Thanks, but no need for more photos.* I got everything drilled, cut and bolted in yesterday evening just before the thunderstorms rolled through.* It could not have been easier!* Today I hope to do the electrical hookups and take her out for a test run.

Thanks,
Darrell

*

[Keith]

For my Krogen 42, the storm anchor is a Fortress FX-83! When I was buying the boat I saw that in the lazarette and said "Good grief! Have you ever used that?" The PO, without smiling just looked at me and said "Once".*

[Peter B]

GonzoF1 wrote:

*
Peter B wrote:

Who is still using the old monochrome GPS and depth sounders

ME!

Baltimore Lurker wrote..

Me too.* And the depth sounder display at the upper helm .... well, I think it was an antique when it was installed I don't know how many years ago - a beige box with the orange digital numbers.* But it works.

Actually Gonzo and Lurker, I must admit, having said the above quite seriously, I also have an old monochrome sonar up on the flybridge, but that's because it was the one I replaced down at the main helm with colour GPS/sonar combo, and I look on up top as a fair-weather, wind-in-the-hair, not-a-worry-in-the-world, place to drive from, so as it still works, its sufficing.* However, a new colour combo for up there is on the list, (or more likely the one below would come up there when I* put a better (HD & radar capable) one down below, because that's the way we do it, is it not?* As a matter of fact, I retained an old Seafarer rotating light + digital readout one below, which even pre-dated the old Lowrance X70A now up top, because it still works well, is very accurate, and it's useful redundacy down below for when things are serious.* And so on the same theme, the CQR/plough I replaced with* Sarca, sits in the lazarette as my stern anchor if ever needed - never has so far.* Waste not - want not I say, but I like the best available as number 1.

*


-- Edited by Peter B on Saturday 15th of May 2010 07:01:03 AM

[FF]

A depth sounder is a great toy for steaming in strange waters, but for selecting WHICH anchor to use its useless.

Each type anchor works in some type of bottom and must be selected foe where you are. Charts help , but the only real way to understand the botton is a quick sample.

A lead line with a blob of peanut butter will not only give an error free depth it will bring up a sample.

A hammer can make a hole , but a drill is the better tool, a drill will set a nail , but not very well.

Weather its a Herrishoff , Northhill, Danforth CQR Bruce or todays newest version of selling steel for $10.00 a pound it needs to be selected for the bottom, there is NO "all purpose- everywhere " anchor.

[Peter B]

FF wrote....
"Weather its a Herrishoff , Northhill, Danforth CQR Bruce or todays newest version of selling steel for $10.00 a pound it needs to be selected for the bottom, there is NO "all purpose- everywhere " anchor."

Sorry, FF, you're wrong - just plain wrong. Actually, I think you would be the sort of seafarer to be pleased for once to be wrong about something, because these anchors are a real break-through, and having to have umpteen different anchors for different types of bottoms, and the trick of working out what kind of bottom it is, is a worry nice not to have. To find out why, go to...........
http://www.anchorright.com.au/products/sarca-anchors

Edited to make link live - I hope.



-- Edited by Peter B on Sunday 16th of May 2010 07:38:45 AM

[Nomad Willy]

Peter B,I like my XYZ if I can get it to set but that may happen less than 50% of the time. Got to the point where I rarely launch it and it's one of those anchors that don't have a weighted tip. If I'm in front of a gale thats to blow over 50 i'm going to try every trick in the book to get the XYZ set because once it's set I've got no worries. It seems to stick like a welded cleat on a tug boat and at very low scope. I'm going to try to sharpen the tip to get better setting performance.
Marin,
We've been through this anchor talk and Bruce bashing so many times * .. and we just keep saying the same things. Now I've got something different to say. Everybody seems to agree that the Bruce has above average setting performance. Just poor holding. And that's understandable as there is nothing really sideways on a Bruce to the direction of pull or travel to resist movement * *.... so the anchor drags. And as it drags it should penetrate deeper and use the chain as resistance. When I had a Bruce the more I pulled on it the deeper it seemed to go because when I pulled it out in the morning it took quite an effort. The Bruce drags * ... but I don't think it drags very far. I have a feeling that I could throw a 5lb Bruce over the bow, set it good and If I was in a gale I think it would just penetrate deeper and deeper and hold better and better and if I had any room to speak of I'd not be dragged onto the beach. Now * .. if I had a 1/2" chain for 2 feet next to the little bruce I may have a good anchor.


Eric Henning

[FF]

sarca-anchors

Anchors and anchoring techniques are as much FAITH as every religion.

The rag baggers will argue Cutter vs Sloop , the marine motorists Gas vs Diesel , or single vs twins forever.

If you want to dream your anchor system (or GOD) is better than mine ,
I have no problem with that at all.

I only have a problem if you decide its justified to kill me as an unbeliever.

[Peter B]

Kill you as an unbeliever FF? No way, I'm only motivated to improve your cruising sleep at night. Why you say?* Because I also disagree with your premise that choice of an anchor, and anchoring is a function of faith rather than science.* Please don't tell me you believe even an old dog can't learn a new trick?


-- Edited by Peter B on Monday 17th of May 2010 05:22:12 AM

[BaltimoreLurker]

The Autohelm 3000 wheel pilot is in and works like a champ!* What a difference that makes to my enjoyment of the boat.* I love my boat and being on the water but I didn't want to hold on to the wheel every &(!*&^@) second.*

My boat is so retro - monochrome GPS, beige box depth sounder, and now an autopilot that is so old it's even an analog unit. But, it all works!

Many thanks to all who responded to my auto pilot query.* It was definitely the way to go.* Wish I had done it sooner.

[Dream Catcher]

A 12v fridge is high on my wish list.* Is there a favorite out there?

Dick

[Marin]

Dream Catcher wrote:

A 12v fridge is high on my wish list.* Is there a favorite out there?

Dick

If you're talking a AC/DC refrigerator/freezer.......

The Norcold refirgerator/freezer that came with our boat keeps threatening to die, but when we start making plans to replace it, it refuses to quit.* But when the day comes that it does, our research has settled us on a stainless steel Isotherm unit as the replacement.* One advantage of the Isotherm (and others) is that their models all use Danfoss condensers which from everything we've read are the best, most reliable units available for this type of refrigerator.

Isotherm also makes a very clever drawer-type refrigerator/freezer which we'd love to have, but at the time we started looking at their product line the largest drawer unit would not fill our available space so we would be losing capacity with it.* So we picked a normal door-type unit.* If by the time we actually have to replace the Norcold Isotherm has come out with a drawer unit that will fill our undercounter hole, we will definitely get one.

*

[skipperdude]

Marin,

The reason the Rocna does not have a ballastered tip is that Peter Smith considered tip ballasting inefficient; instead he allocated the saved weight to the blade area, structual reinforcement, and the rollbar itself.* instead of dedicated tip ballast, The Rocna employs heavier plate at the toe which adds strength there.

Rocnas shank is simmilar to that of the Delta, but its inside profile is slightly different in that the crown section creates a tight angle against the boats bow roller. This is intended to ensure a snug seat on the roller. It would seem to me that your bow roller is problamatic in that you indicated the need to secure the anchor to prevent a self launch.
Or perhaps Rocna did not consider your type of *bow roller when designing the anchor.**

I like the idea of having to shove the anchor forward a bit to launch. *I feel more secure when the anchor sets on the roller good and secure.* Ever had one come off the roller in a heavy sea?
*Not something I want to happen twice.

SD

[skipperdude]

Anchoring.

It is always and forever more a shot in the dark.**Unless you can go down and see what's happening.
*It is like me and Shrimping you put your traps down 500 ft and hope you dont get snagged or hung up in some other way. If I do loose a trap or a whole string . hey it's the bottom of the ocean.* You drop the anchor and everyone thinks

*"I hope I can Get a Good set."

Tell me thats not faith.*