What's a next-gen anchor?

[SteveK]

Steve,
Sometimes I spell .....

I kellet myself, LOL over this craze when in fashion or trending in vogue while we strive to attach, fasten, fix or secure our vessel to mother earth.
Back to you anchorman

 

[izikalvo]

New generation anchors offer greater holding that past designs. That means you can use a lighter anchor and have the same security we had in the past with less effective design.

The idea of using chain and rope combined is not new, I have to admit, I have posted this thread in three different forums and the wisdom of the crowd is working wonderfully and I am learning a lot, we are still thinking if it is possible to come up with a light solution that will be strong and trustable enough that will dismiss the usage of windlass, rope materials came a long way and technically I believe it can be done and will be done, the question is how long it will take us to trust the new idea, see new design anchors, most of us still talking of the weight of the anchor as the main factor when choosing new one not it's tested holding power value and then size up just to be safe when in new design anchors it just might be disadvantage to doing so.



Thank you all for your valuable comments.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Kalvo,
Chain probably is heavier than most anchors used here. And many are very attached to their chain. And when most buy a new-gen anchor they usually go a size up. This is Trawler Forum. And the most significant difference between a trawler (a genuine trawler) and a cruiser is weight. So weight is very popular and possibly even virtuous here.

That said you mention “learning a lot” ... are you not boaters? Well here is a good source if that’s so .... or otherwise. We had knowledge and experience coming out of our ears ten years ago and then we only had a small fraction of the members that we have now. But most “members” don’t post. So stick around and go boldly forth.

But re talking mostly about the anchor consider that many, a very many here consider all chain to be a basic starting point. I’ve always said to more often than not put the weight of one’s ground tackle into the anchor. Like going up 30lbs worth of chain will get you very little but going up 30lbs in anchor weight will up your game a lot.
But as you say if you can come up w something light enough to get the job done you’ll be at least very close to success. But there’s a lot of guys here that are unwilling to come out of the wheelhouse to anchor their boat. It’s a push button world. They even sell “push to start” as a new gotta have feature on your car. But we had that in Ford cars in the 30’s. People don’t wanna get wet or cold and pushing a button is golden.

So this new product may have a limited market. But for me .. full speed ahead. The lighter the better.
Something I mentioned a few days ago is that the Aluminum Spade anchor’s performance is clearly well below the same anchor in steel having nothing to do w strength.
So I’m think’in getting a “light enough” rode may be as simple as finding an existing product not used before for an anchor line that fits the requirements. But making huge improvements in lightweight anchors will be difficult or not possible w the knowledge and materials we have at hand. But they probably had the same thought many times in the past perhaps even before our time. Boat/ship anchors have been evolving for at least many hundreds of years. And you expect to out-do all that thinking and experience in a relatively minute amount of time re anchor history.

I wish you lots of luck and more in your travels and hope to be privy to some of it.

 

[rslifkin]

To me, lightweight anchors, rode, etc. is more important for a secondary anchor than a primary. A secondary is more likely to need to be hand deployed / retrieved or launched from a dinghy, etc. So light weight gives more flexibility and also reduces the weight you're carrying around for something that's not used often. Others would likely agree, which is likely why the Fortress is so common as a secondary anchor.

Realistically, if you can come up with a good light-weight anchor and rode setup, even if nobody ends up putting one on their bow, there are a lot of people who would buy one to have aboard. Particularly if it outperforms a Fortress / short chain leader / nylon rode combo for weight vs performance and/or ease of use.

For a primary, I place good functionality in a wide range of conditions over weight. Of course, weight matters to some extent, but I'll take "works a little better" over "10 lbs lighter" there.

For rode, I didn't want to carry around a ton of extra weight if I don't need to, so I gave some real thought to how much chain is "enough", where adding more will be of limited benefit. I settled on probably 75 feet, maybe as much as 90. But anything beyond that will be nylon, as I need at least 350 feet of rode to be happy with my cruising grounds and there's no way I'm putting 360+ lbs of chain in the bow of my planing hull. It would carry it well enough, but it would also slow the boat down and be a waste of fuel.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Like your post rslifkin,
Never used a secondary rode. I always talk about a primary. I consider my secondary to be as a spare tire. But I have numerous anchors and choose for the occasion. This fits well into my liking the ARA SARCA as it has the built in retrieval system. So I don’t hafta anchor w an old anchor I bought for $20 when I anchor in a bay that had a sawmill years ago. River mouths and rocky areas also. And unlike others I trust the slotted retrieval system. And the anchor sets and resets so dependably I hardly need to consider that either.

I also like a long primary. I’ve got 400’ of 5/8ths nylon brait. Never had to use half of it that I can recall but it should keep me off the beach when my engine quits. It has by the way. It gives me more latitude when reversing for wear too. Your 75 to 90’ would read 10to 25’ for me but we only have a 30’ boat w low windage. The low windage probably saved us a time or two also.

Just for conversation a Manson Boss may do well on your planing Cris Craft. Should mount and deploy as easy as a Claw and has no ballast. Just a thought. I think their blade area per pound is high. Good in mud. 95% of the time I think I anchor in mud.
A Boss w 50’ of chain or 30’ a size up.

 

[RT Firefly]

 

[rslifkin]

I also like a long primary. I’ve got 400’ of 5/8ths nylon brait. Never had to use half of it that I can recall but it should keep me off the beach when my engine quits. It has by the way. It gives me more latitude when reversing for wear too. Your 75 to 90’ would read 10to 25’ for me but we only have a 30’ boat w low windage. The low windage probably saved us a time or two also.

Just for conversation a Manson Boss may do well on your planing Cris Craft. Should mount and deploy as easy as a Claw and has no ballast. Just a thought. I think their blade area per pound is high. Good in mud. 95% of the time I think I anchor in mud.
A Boss w 50’ of chain or 30’ a size up.

I did consider the Boss as an option, but going by the dimensions, I'm not sure it would fit. The 73 lb Vulcan should fit just fine on the pulpit, however. The tip isn't excessively long, which is my biggest clearance issue. Even the 88 lb version would fit, although it would be tight. A Mantus would fit nicely as well except for the roll bar. The pulpit extends too far past the roller, so it wouldn't self launch or retrieve, I'd have to do some manual fiddling to get the roll bar over the end of the pulpit every time. End result was deciding to take the easy way out and buy the Vulcan.

Interestingly, I'm not sure how well a claw would actually fit my pulpit. Based on Lewmar's given dimensions for a 30kg example, I think the wings might actually hit the sides of the pulpit when pulled up fully. It would clear the hull though. I included a couple pictures of the pulpit, one with a Fortress snugged up to the bottom for reference.

As far as rode, I got a decent deal on a pail of chain from Defender, so when the new rode arrives tomorrow it'll be 90 feet of 5/16" HT and 300 feet of 5/8" brait. I figure that's plenty of chain to avoid bottom chafe issues in any non-coral area, so for me, no benefit to adding more. And that means I should have about 380 feet of usable length, which is plenty.

 

[Nomad Willy]

rslifkin,
Boss should fit but ????
The ARA Excel should fit. Looks a bit like the Delta but is 10x better. Can’t go wrong w that.
The wing flukes on Claws coming in contact w the pulpit is a plus I think. Often it locks the anchor in place so it dosn’t bang back and forth.
I like Claws but always say “a size up” but if the anchor in question is already one size up you’d probably be oversized. I’d be looking at the Excel or Boss. Just my opinion.
Nice hull. I was think’in you had a woodie.

 

[rslifkin]

The boss is too long, so it would be hard to get it up without whacking the hull. I think am Excel would fit, but I'll have to check again to be sure.

And no, no wood hull for me. She's an 86, so too new for wood.

 

[FF]

"New generation anchors offer greater holding that past designs. That means you can use a lighter anchor and have the same security we had in the past with less effective design."

If this were true (which I doubt) why would you want to?

Most power boat folks have a powered windlass so a good sized anchor is no more bother than a much touted watch fob.

 

[Nomad Willy]

FF,
I have seen anchor tests that show 5 and 15 times as much holding power from next gen anchors. I question if that is physically possible. Most anchor tests are run by magazines and they tend to support their advertisers who of course are selling new anchors.
Anchors have been developing and evolving for 100 yrs and more. But the curve of anchor abilities will not be a straight line. As we march toward perfection improvements will traditionally become less and less. So a curve representing improvements will be flatter and flatter as time goes on.
This would indicate to me that older anchors will be (performance wise) very similar to new anchors. But the performance shown on anchor tests indicate that very recently a huge increase in performance just took place. This seems to indicate that one will not be safe w/o buying a new anchor. A perfect storm for magazines and anchor manufacturers.
The only feature that sticks out prominently is the roll bar. But the roll bar is not a positive holding power performance feature IMO. It’s a setting feature.
So where does all this spectacular increase in performance come from? Personally I think that most of it dosn’t exist.
Another factor involved here is how we use them. Specifically the high number of people that never even subject an anchor to 1/2 of it’s capability. And that could apply to an old Danforth from 1938 or a new-gen Rocna. The holding power of the newer anchors is so great that what anchor one chooses should (more or less) not be based on holding power but on other features like setting, veering, reversing, mountability on boats, lightness, price and numerous other features. One can get more bang for the buck shopping for these features.

 

[psneeld]

Could it be like cars?

The engineering demanded for better anchors over time may have produced better performance....

 

[Peter B]

"New generation anchors offer greater holding that past designs. That means you can use a lighter anchor and have the same security we had in the past with less effective design."

If this were true (which I doubt) why would you want to?

Most power boat folks have a powered windlass so a good sized anchor is no more bother than a much touted watch fob.

Quoting...who exactly..? You said Wilco FF, remember..? I'll add the 'over and out'...

 

[OldDan1943]

The US Navy hasn't changed its anchor design in almost forever. Make it big and paint it grey.
I wont talk about anchors design used on nuclear subs. I am still too pretty to go to prison.
I will leak just a little information. It is painted black.

 

[Nomad Willy]

FF wrote;
Originally Posted by FF View Post
"New generation anchors offer greater holding that past designs. That means you can use a lighter anchor and have the same security we had in the past with less effective design."

But more importantly you can also have reversals w/o worrying about the rode pulling the anchor out, very poor performance on certain seafloors, poor short scope performance ect ect. Plus you only need an anchor 1/2 the size and/or weight. But have you ever heard of anyone on TF downsizing an anchor. Marin Faure got a size up when he bought a Rocna even though the Rocna had at least twice the holding power of his old Burce.

So FF I don’t see any from this group buying a half weight anchor.

 

[Art]

FF wrote;
Originally Posted by FF View Post

So FF I don’t see any from this group buying a half weight anchor.

Lightweight - Fortress!

Good holding power in certain bottom conditions; especially mud.

 

[Peter B]

FF wrote;
Originally Posted by FF View Post
"New generation anchors offer greater holding that past designs. That means you can use a lighter anchor and have the same security we had in the past with less effective design."

But more importantly you can also have reversals w/o worrying about the rode pulling the anchor out, very poor performance on certain seafloors, poor short scope performance ect ect. Plus you only need an anchor 1/2 the size and/or weight. But have you ever heard of anyone on TF downsizing an anchor. Marin Faure got a size up when he bought a Rocna even though the Rocna had at least twice the holding power of his old Burce.

So FF I don’t see any from this group buying a half weight anchor.

No Eric, FF didn't say that - he was quoting someone else, and which is why I have urged him, and others, (if the cap fits), to use the quote button more, and edit out what he does not want to leave, so there is no doubt.

What FF actually said was...

"If this were true (which I doubt) why would you want to?
Most power boat folks have a powered windlass so a good sized anchor is no more bother than a much touted watch fob."

Which was in response to the bit you quoted, but you, (like I suspect many others), missed his quotation marks.

See FF, this is exactly what I meant, when I said please use the 'quote' button. The big blue thing labeled 'Quote', third from left at the bottom of the post concerned. It is just as quick to highlight and delete what you don't want or need to include, (and I applaud folk doing that, rather than just regurgitating the whole post as a quote), as it is to highlight, copy & paste just the bits you want to quote + quotation marks, and with who it is quoting all done for yah. It works a treat, I tell you...

 

[FF]

The quote " New generation anchors offer greater holding that past designs. That means you can use a lighter anchor and have the same security we had in the past with less effective design." Was from post #152.

Sorry if some folks do not understand the meaning and use of quotation marks

Magazines live off their advertisers, the 15 time better holding , is mostly under a Bridge to Brooklyn.

No question folks have been experimenting with anchors for the past 4000-5000 years .

Although it would be Hell to handle and stow. if I were forced to have only ONE anchor for a world cruise a folding Herrishoff Yachtsman would be first choice.

UGH,, way heavy and too much work to get back aboard , but I would sleep well.

IF allowed a couple of Danforth H series .
Mr Ogg the inventor of the Danforth in his book sez never to use a single anchor, 2 is his minimum .
4 or 5 make a great seasonal mooring , that can be relocated if required.

For most 35-45 fters a Danforth 35H at bow and a 20H at stern would be fine until the real storm warnings fly.
Then its time to drop the 60H underfoot and have an anchor watch to fend off the dragers sliding by.

A 60 CQR should be fine for the folks that prefer only one anchor.

The 15 lb modern watch fob could make a nice nautical lamp.
The roll bar would help moving it from cabin to cabin.

 

[rslifkin]

I agree with not believing claims of 10 or 15 times better. But for the most part, newer designs do seem to work better than a CQR, Bruce, Delta, etc. So if a new anchor is being purchased and a newer design is in the budget, might as well get one.

The Danforth (and Fortress) are a separate category in my book. They're not great under all conditions, but for the conditions where they work well, they work very well, even against modern designs.

For the 2 anchors thing, there are certainly times where 2 anchors is the best way to do it. But in an open space with plenty of swing room, it makes more sense to just use 1 anchor and rode setup that's big enough to hold. That's both for ease of handling and for ease of getting everything set and used correctly.

 

[Nomad Willy]

I agree the Fortress is in a different category than the Danforth. They are the same type of course but Danforth invented the type .. in 1938. And the genuine Danforth anchor still is a viable go-to anchor. But the copies are probably more numerous and even more unfortunately are way below the genuine products performance. Many shouldn’t even be legal to sell.

And even though the Danforth is steel I believe the holding per lb is probably comparable to modern designs. In 50yrs time the Danforth anchor will be held up as an excellent product.

Re the two anchor thing I’ve never done it.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Peter B,
Not exactly.
The problem is most all don’t “edit out” ... what is irrelevant is rarely edited out.
I prefer to copy and paste my quotes. That way only what is relevant is posted. Only about 30% of the quote you posted is from/by FF.

 

[psneeld]

While I know it takes up space, I have seen partial quotes that get repeated for pages and the original poster is now being quoted out of context...thus new posts debating something that maybe wouldn't have been had the whole post been quoted the first time.

 

[Peter B]

The quote " New generation anchors offer greater holding that past designs. That means you can use a lighter anchor and have the same security we had in the past with less effective design." Was from post #152.

Sorry if some folks do not understand the meaning and use of quotation marks

A 60 CQR should be fine for the folks that prefer only one anchor.

The 15 lb modern watch fob could make a nice nautical lamp.
The roll bar would help moving it from cabin to cabin.

FF, read this carefully, I weell say this only wooonce... (now where have I heard that before).

1. We get the quotation marks - usually - the trouble is it gives no idea who you are quoting, or where from.

2. My S-Sarca, weighed, (when I owned it) 22kg = 45lbs, and I think, even for a 34 foot boat, that is NOT a watch fob. You need to get out more, (once allowed, that is), and actually see/? try more anchors. Just sayin' If you WILCO, (= will cooperate), I'll Over and out.

 

[SteveK]

when I do not want to quote an entire post I "" and put into italics, like this

"I agree with not believing claims of 10 or 15 times better."

Never mind 10 or 15, even twice as better will remain unknown to me if my current anchor, or my current geo fence anchorage is still in the same place when I wake up.
So better only means to me at least it improves on the one that failed me.

 

[FF]

"So better only means to me at least it improves on the one that failed me." #174

There are some bottoms in which almost every anchor will fail.

In Maine there are bottoms that consist of bowling ball sized ricks ,

In Nassau the current sweeps the sand in the main channel enough that the sand is as hard as concrete.

 

[ranger58sb]

"So better only means to me at least it improves on the one that failed me." #174

Including the quoted post number helps...

-Chris

 

[Peter B]

when I do not want to quote an entire post I "" and put into italics, like this

"I agree with not believing claims of 10 or 15 times better."

I give up..! So, it doesn't occur to you that when you do that no-one else knows who you are quoting, and where from..? That's exactly what I've been gently chiding old FF about. That's what he does. Makes the quote almost pointless..!

 

[SteveK]

" I give up....!" post 177

Easier to quote all

I give up..! So, it doesn't occur to you that when you do that no-one else knows who you are quoting, and where from..? That's exactly what I've been gently chiding old FF about. That's what he does. Makes the quote almost pointless..!

Then delete some to focus the reply

I give up..! .. ............

OK then,

 

[Nomad Willy]

I always write in “Peter B wrote;”
Then “what Peter wrote”.

This way everybody knows who I’m quoting and since I can be selective about what goes between the quote marks I don’t post any more than what’s needed. And I’m the one that makes that call.
I don’t even know how to do the built-in method.

I don’t see any problem w the way Steve posts.

I like FF’s “
“The 15 lb modern watch fob could make a nice nautical lamp.
The roll bar would help moving it from cabin to cabin.”

 

[Peter B]

I always write in “Peter B wrote;”
Then “what Peter wrote”.

I don’t even know how to do the built-in method.

Eric, at least putting the name of whom you are quoting is better than just the quotation marks, but seriously...you don't know how to use the built in method, after all this time..? Not sure I believe that - maybe you're yankin' my chain, but to repeat it, and for the benefit of anyone else that might not 'get it'...

You just click on the ruddy great blue button at the bottom of each post labeled 'Quote', (next to the Edit button), then when that box pops up, to edit out what you don't want included - and I wish more would do this, rather than including the entire post - you just highlight what you want to leave out, and delete that, being careful NOT to include the beginning

in the deletion. Then it's all done, with the person being quoted made quite clear.

To quote from several posts, you just click on the button to the right of the Quote button, that's just labeled with left and right speech-marks, (it will then glow red), repeat that for each post, then also, after that, click on the Quote button of just the last post you are quoting. Then edit as above.