View Single Post
Old 01-18-2022, 09:33 AM   #36
cardude01
Guru
 
cardude01's Avatar
 
City: Victoria TX
Vessel Name: Bijou
Vessel Model: 2008 Island Packet PY/SP
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter B View Post
I watched that new video of Steve's right through. I was intrigued as to how it all panned out, but when you really analyse it all, thinking of the real time use we put anchors to, the stand out feature that most folk want and like is that the newer anchors set so much more quickly, reliably, and effectively than some of the older ones like the CQR.



The series of sets then shows that once set, the CQR performed quite well. It was getting the CQR, or even worse, the knock-offs of it, to set that drove us mad, and set us off on the search for a better anchor, right..?



Then there was the somewhat surprising finding that several of the most popular anchors appeared to not do that well, yet as Cardude says, his Rocna appears to perform extremely well, but did not in Steve's drag test.

Yet Steve Dashew swore by his large Rocna for the much renowned Windhorse.



The stand-out for me was the concave anchors, set well, and hold quite well, unless they are subjected to foces that cause a slow drag. That is when the concave fluke tends to fill with mud, and this tends to prevent re-setting, so eventually they pop out. I suggest most folk do their best to avoid anchoring when and where they might be faced with such conditions, so their anchor is not faced with this situation. If it has never failed, it never fails, right..? Being the flip-side to the saying that an anchor never fails...until it does..!



Conversely, the ones that tend to perform the best in the more extreme conditions are those with convex flukes, eg the Sarca Excel, Delta, and some others, or those with very a shallow concavity in the fluke, like the Viking, Mantus 2, and Rocna Vulcan, that then are able to keep moving slowly through the substrate, but their fluke does not fill up with gunk, so they don't tend to pop out, or if they do, they shed the gunk, and re-set. Again, as most avoid the extremes likely to expose these differences, it explains why most are satisfied with their anchor.



All in all though, an excellent test series, and allowing for the bottom conditions, gives a quite good comparison among the range, with some rather unexpected outcomes.

The reason I ditched my old CQR for my 55 Lb Rocna is I had trouble getting the CQR to set quickly (or at all). It sets so hard and fast I rarely back down on it in fact.

I also have a Fortress FX-37 I can deploy if I’m really worried, but I rarely use it.
cardude01 is offline   Reply With Quote