What's a next-gen anchor?

Peter B and I wrote;

"Peter B wrote;
“Correct, Eric, and the above comments illustrate beautifully the difference between the convex and concave nextgen anchors.”

Eric wrote;
That implies that only “next gen” anchors are concave.
That’s mostly true. But there are concave older anchors. The Claw .. but looking some I find that you’re right. And there is a reason. That being that the Frenchman that designed the Spade researched the fluke shape and found that concave shapes offered more resistance to moving in the direction of the concave side in a fluid. How much I don’t know but it’s enough the make the anemometer work. So the only research required was to look at an anemometer. So all the truly concave anchors were post Spade."

We've used the expression "Next Generation" anchor hundreds of times on TF. But I doubt many or any have thought about exactly what it means.

Earlier this week I go to thinking I may have stumbled onto a definition of "next gen". Did it start w the Spade and are all anchors from that time descendants of the Spade. When did the Spade hit the market? The Vulcan is almost an outright copy of the Spade.
But thinking the concave fluke is the commonality in next gen anchors isn't bullet prof. Excel and SARCA are both convex fluked anchors. And did the Delta come on the market after the Spade? When did Max come to the market. It could pre-date the Spade .. and it's concave. And does a Claw have a concave fluke? And does it pre-date the Spade ... ? The first roll bar anchor was the German Bugel and it has a flat fluke.

So post-Spade says a lot but far from the whole picture.
Wonder what others think.
And what others can add to the emerging dates of many of theses anchors.

The "next" generation of anchors is in the future.

markpierce said:

The "next" generation of anchors is in the future.

Click to expand...

Unarguably true.
But "nextgen",(or even "nexgen"), refers to a range of anchors postdating "pastgen" anchor designs. Wonder what the cutoff date is? Some things are nor worth exploring. It`s when traditional design gave way to weird looking designs. Maybe the Bruce type is the earliest(or an early) departure from tradition.

"Nextgen" is an , advertising term like Hi FI.

The meaning is whatever the advertiser is selling that day..

I prefer "Tried and True " a setup with 50-75 years of operating history .

The downside to T&T is folks have learned simple lessons.

No anchor is perfect for every bottom , size does matter. technique does matter.

Nomad Willy said:

Earlier this week I go to thinking I may have stumbled onto a definition of "next gen". Did it start w the Spade and are all anchors from that time descendants of the Spade. When did the Spade hit the market? The Vulcan is almost an outright copy of the Spade.

...When did Max come to the market. It could pre-date the Spade .. and it's concave.

Wonder what others think.
And what others can add to the emerging dates of many of theses anchors.

Click to expand...

Sometimes it seems easier to me to just list the names. Spade, (original) Rocna, Vulcan, Excel, etc etc etc

Were it up to me, I would include the SuperMAX... mostly because it emerged as a serious mud/hurricane contender (and we have serious mud in the Chesapeake)... I think in the late '90s, but predating many of the other names I'd include. I think the first I heard about it was from Cap'n Wil Andrews reviews (in the old trawler listserv) about hurricane anchoring in the North (?) Carolina mud, approximately circa '98 (?) or so.

-Chris

Next -Gen was here a long time ago. It started somewhere just after the Navy anchor

Arc said:

Next -Gen was here a long time ago. It started somewhere just after the Navy anchor

Click to expand...

You're right. Most people don't make that connection.


Still the best is a Fortress though. Just sayin'.

I see I was focused too close to home.
Next-gen in the future and past-gen in the past.

FF I think “hi-fi” is just an abbreviation.
And what’s not “tried and true” about a Rocna or Max?

And Bruce the “not worth exploring” part even occurred to me. I don’t even like the expression next-gen. First off generation refers to people. .That’s what it’s about. But people hijacked the word kinda like trawler applied to a different thing. And awesome is the same old word just applied to a different thing. And absolutely used in place of yes. And it has little to do w absolute as it just means yes. But yes is an old word .. gotta have something new. Even though it’s terribly inefficient having ten letters and three syllables. Kinda stupid that so many things need to be overstated.
But the expression next-gen on TF elevates what it’s applied to as new as new. Assumed to be far better than anything classified as old. But how old is a Spade? We don’t know yet but it certainly isn’t new. But the expression “in w the new out w the old” dates back to at least the 40’s so to aspire to have new things is not new .. in itself.
Perhaps next-gen means modern enough to be good enough to be desirable. Or does it admit certain things to be admitted to a classification not unlike a club.

But despite all my wandering we do know what next-gen anchors are. And there probably isn’t a cutoff point or starting time and one wouldn’t wonder if a Claw or Spade would be a next-gen anchor. But I don’t think the word generation should be used the way it is on TF. I’m sure it was started in promoting and advertising. But it applies to a group .. not one product or line of products. So far I’ve talked about there probably or somewhat universally design feature that is common to all. But if performance was included some to many (like Danforth) could be part of the elite group of anchors called next-gen. But Spade is light years ahead of Danforth. So probably not Danforth but they hold really well in most bottoms. But Danforth IS an old design so couldn’t possibly be considered as next-gen.
Are next-gen anchors those that perform acceptably well on many/most bottom types .. this feature being heavily related to performance and dependability .. but you can see applying performance to next-gen is hard to do. Even newer anchors that flopped like the hydrobubble and quite a few others would be thought of as next-gen anchors. So most likely performance is not part of next gen.
But one could consider shape (Bruce) or materials (Fortress) to be part of “next-gen”.

Have I muddied the waters sufficiently?

Arc and Redhook98 ...
I see my scope was too narrow.
Good.
We may learn something after all.

You know the saying “ Whatever holds your boat”

Super High Holding Power (SHHP) anchors are currently the highest classification of anchors and must have at least four times the holding power of an ordinary stockless anchor of the same mass.

Next-gen anchors would be Super Duper High Holding Power (SDHHP) anchors capable of at least five times the holding power of an ordinary stockless anchor of the same mass.

Anchoring theorists envision semi-autonomous multi unit anchors which crawl along the ocean floor synchronizing their deployment while adjusting for bottom topography and constituent material structure. They will be known as Superior Holding Intelligent Tractoring (****) anchors, as in, "Nothing holds my boat like that ****"

Eric,
Having been involved in a lot of the earlier anchor testing, we were always using the Delta as the turning point between “older” and “next gen” anchors. Bruce and copies would be before, Spade, Rocna, Manson.... would be after. There is probably a lot of confusion for actual dates, from initial testing to mass production to regional marketing. Again just what we were thinking, but because the testing I was involved in all happened in the US, we normally didn’t take much interest until a design was available here. I felt like the tests that were published in Practical Sailor were an introduction to new designs for a lot of boaters. According to know it all Google, the Delta was introduced in the early 90’s, and the Spade in the mid 90’s with refinements a few years later to what we see today. The Bugel was invented much earlier, I think in the 80’s, but the only ones seen in the US were on foreign cruising boats and they were not available for sale here for a long time.

I think Nexgen is a moving target. After traditional navy type anchors, Danforth was the predominant anchor type around the Great Lakes. Delta and Bruce type anchors were then the Nexgen, but that to has evolved and I just picked up my new Vulcan on Thursday. But tomorrow who knows, there will always be someone trying to create a better “mousetrap” and when they are successful, your new Nexgen anchor(s) is born.

Ventanna,
I suspect this thread could morff on forever .. or at least a year.
Yes the Bruce anchor was far more popular as one brand or model than we have as one brand or model today. The Bruce was the rage in anchors in the mid/late 70’s. Basically there was nothing else but Danforths. I’m old enough to know. But perhaps there were numerous other anchors available .. but I don’t recall any.

The Wagoner cruise guide guy was selling Bruce anchors to most everybody heading for Alaska and probably most everybody else too. Quite unlike now where over a dozen anchors are popular and probably next-gen anchors. The Bruce was quite the big deal in the 70’s and 80’s.

And how many Claws are sold today? And I’m sure a lot of Dans are sold now too.

Also Vantanna your input about the Delta was interesting. I have very limited sailboat experience and little knowledge about CQR’s and Deltas. When I see a CQR on a trawler I automatically assume the skipper was a sailboater before. But because of the probability that the Delta evolved from the CQR it would have a sailboat following. Never used either anchor and know very little. I did however read a lot of Practical Sailor anchor tests. I think at one time they were the only people testing anchors. And that’s better than now when nobodies testing anchors.

LaBomba ... a moving target indeed. Only a short time ago roll bar anchors were a brand new thing. HaHa

Murray it’s been a long winter eh?

I was simply stating that my observations are that the term next generation came into use describing all the anchors that are replacing the Bruce and the CQR. The Delta is the only one I wouldn’t really know where to place as there was a lot of hype about it’s increased performance but I don’t feel like it ever really lived up to the advertising.
A while back, if you had a cruising boat, either sail or power, you had either a CQR or a Bruce as your main anchor. There were exceptions like the old classics with their fisherman anchors. The Delta was introduced and the rumors started flying that it was a far superior anchor (not sure I agree), but I think that was the start of anchor performance one-upsmanship, which pretty much reached it’s peak with Peter and his Rocna testing.
Danforth styles have been around forever and continue to sell, we still carry a Bruce as a backup on our boat but mostly because it came with it, and once you get to the more far-flung locations you still see an awful lot of CQRs on sailboats.
Up here in Alaska it is still almost always a Forfjord on the commercial boats and smaller Bruce styles on the charter boats. Just in the past few years have I noticed the occasional next gen anchor on the bow of a commercial boat.

I looked at the SARCA/Anchorright site,Why Anchor Right Australia is set apart from the rest - Anchor Right Australia, it doesn`t use the "nexgen" term but refers to revolutionary developments 20 years ago. They are among the multiple designer manufacturers involved in anchor development. 20 years on, maybe "currentgen"captures it better.
There will always be reports and claims of design and holding progress,if only because it helps sell anchors. But semantics aside, I think it`s more than that, there has been real improvement in our time.

In the 1960s the Danforth was "new" generation (yet still popular). In the 1970/80s, it was the Bruce. The plow was populate then too, but dying. Still, 1980s anchor technology works for me, now, here.

The nexgen anchor is the one that come out after you buy your anchor

Fortress - Best all around anchor, bar none!

As with any "holding device"... I recommend purchasing one level beyond the size that is listed for your boat. Easy to do and easy to handle due to affordable prices and light weights.

Art said:

...

As with any "holding device"... I recommend purchasing one level beyond the size that is listed for your boat. Easy to do and easy to handle due to affordable prices and light weights.

Click to expand...

Wonder why anchor producers recommend under-sized anchors when larger anchors are more profitable? Or do many boaters doubt the reliability of normal/recommended-sized anchors?

Mark I think there’s a little Marin Faure in most TF members.

Marin was totally convinced his Rocna would never drag ...... EVER. We all want a 100% dependable anchor but of course there’s no such thing.

Re the validity of recommendations they run to the ridiculous light and the ridiculously heavy. But one must factor in the abilities or/and inabilities of the anchor, your boating style, winds and current likely to be encountered and all the other stuff. Then if one still thinks your research is possibly flawed do the up a size thing.

MurrayM said:

Anchoring theorists envision semi-autonomous multi unit anchors which crawl along the ocean floor synchronizing their deployment while adjusting for bottom topography and constituent material structure. They will be known as Superior Holding Intelligent Tractoring (****) anchors, as in, "Nothing holds my boat like that ****"

Click to expand...

very good!

I've followed this thread out of interest, although now boatless. Was going to stay out of it, but found the lack of any real consensus as to what separated next-gen anchors from past-gen rather disturbing. Then a thought came to me. Virtually all older anchors have their ardent proponents, (eg FF with the CQR, Mark with his Bruce), but they are usually described as being great in such and such a condition, bottom, whatever, but known to not perform well in or under other specified conditions. In other words, they tend to have some kind of Achilles Heel.

Whereas the next-gen anchors are generally characterised by the fact that they do tend to work well in virtually all conditions, bottoms, tides and currents, and are quick and reliable to set, with no stand-out weaknesses. That's my 10 cents anyway.

markpierce said:

Wonder why anchor producers recommend under-sized anchors when larger anchors are more profitable? Or do many boaters doubt the reliability of normal/recommended-sized anchors?

Click to expand...

I mention that because I believe in extra safety whenever possible.

Nomad Willy said:

Mark I think there’s a little Marin Faure in most TF members.

Marin was totally convinced his Rocna would never drag ...... EVER. We all want a 100% dependable anchor but of course there’s no such thing.

Re the validity of recommendations they run to the ridiculous light and the ridiculously heavy. But one must factor in the abilities or/and inabilities of the anchor, your boating style, winds and current likely to be encountered and all the other stuff. Then if one still thinks your research is possibly flawed do the up a size thing.

Click to expand...

If the Rocna had dragged, it might have been tough to get Marin`s admission it happened.
When I joined TF,if memory serves(it doesn`t always) Marin was involved exploring the metallurgical qualities of Rocnas made somewhere other than by the original manufacturer, perhaps using recycled food cans(no doubt in the best interests of the planet) for the construction material.

BruceK said:

If the Rocna had dragged, it might have been tough to get Marin`s admission it happened.
When I joined TF,if memory serves(it doesn`t always) Marin was involved exploring the metallurgical qualities of Rocnas made somewhere other than by the original manufacturer, perhaps using recycled food cans(no doubt in the best interests of the planet) for the construction material.

Click to expand...

Dear ol' Marin... Silence is golden. But, just might hear from him again... ya never know when it comes to Marin!

markpierce said:

Wonder why anchor producers recommend under-sized anchors when larger anchors are more profitable? Or do many boaters doubt the reliability of normal/recommended-sized anchors?

Click to expand...

I think it's a combination of a few things. Not all manufacturers give good information as far as what conditions their recommendations are for. Not all bottoms are good, so adding some extra margin for error doesn't hurt. And boat manufacturers like to include small / cheap anchors in a lot of cases, so the manufacturers that recommend smaller are likely to sell a lot of anchors to boat builders.

Take a look at a sizing guide for a Delta, for example. We know it's not the highest holding power anchor out there. For my boat, Lewmar's guide says I'm right at the upper limit of a 22lb Delta and a 35lb is plenty big enough. Then we look at Rocna's guide, which says I need a 55lb anchor. Personally, I know the Delta recommendations are undersized, and I'd consider either of those Deltas to be a lunch hook at best for a boat with as much windage as mine.

rslifkin,
Rocna sizes for gale force winds .. or someth'in like that. I’ve read it numerous times. And I’m not one to read the Rocna page. It’s not advertising directly ... just their sizing agenda. It may be advertising indirectly though. He may be flattering you by suggesting you are the kind of skipper that dosn’t stay in port when the wind blows. And that you are smart enough to be looking at a Rocna. People keep looking/buying though despite mild steel shanks in the past and in an anchor test saying “we tell our customers to set at 5-1 and then shorten up” when asked to explain why the Rocna had a poor showing at short scope. Very good advice for any person anchoring at short scope but that act of seamanship dosn’t make the Rocna any better at short scope. But as far as I know all anchors are weak at something when compared to other top tier anchors and the Rocna is no exception. But the Rocna is a very good anchor. To me though short scope performance is important enough that I wouldn’t buy one. And the mild steel shanks. But many say only an idiot would anchor at short scope.

Re rslifkin’s Rocna v/s Delta copy above I’d say buy a 22lb Rocna or a 55lb Delta.

Every manufacturer’s anchoring standards are different. That in itself is not good in that it breeds confusion. But it also breeds smart skippers that read between the lines written by skilled people skilled in propaganda and deception as well as the most learned and objective sources. But from what I read most TF people are informed shoppers.

Nomad Willy said:

Every manufacturer’s anchoring standards are different. That in itself is not good in that it breeds confusion. But it also breeds smart skippers that read between the lines written by skilled people skilled in propaganda and deception as well as the most learned and objective sources. But from what I read most TF people are informed shoppers.

Click to expand...

In my mind, the biggest danger of the inconsistent sizing guidelines is for those who aren't as informed as most on here. They'll just look and say "might as well buy the Delta, it says I don't need as big of one as this other thing, so it must be better"

The note on every anchor design having its weaknesses is a good one and absolutely true. There's no perfect design, unfortunately. And in some cases, the option that seems to be the most well-rounded has to be ruled out for other reasons.

In the case of my new setup, I wanted a Mantus, as it's known to work well and the larger roll bar than most other roll bar anchors should minimize the risk of clogging it with weeds, etc. But I had to knock it off the list, as it just won't fit on my boat without re-designing the pulpit, as the roller is a little too far back to get the roll bar over the end on retrieval. In the case of the Sarca Excel and Supermax, the flukes extend too far back from the roller and would be at a significant risk of hitting the hull. Same problem prevents a properly sized Fortress from fitting on the roller without modification let it sit at a different angle (which would be do-able).

So I settled on a Vulcan as the best choice, knowing that I'm not overly concerned about short scope performance and reports seem to indicate it's otherwise a good performer. And other than needing to modify the slot in the pulpit to allow for the shank thickness, it fits on the boat, even a size above recommended. A Spade was also a consideration, but even if it's better, I can't see it being better enough to justify costing 40 - 65% more than the Vulcan (depending on whether I go slightly smaller or slightly bigger, as there's no exactly equivalent size).

Peter B said:

I've followed this thread out of interest, although now boatless. Was going to stay out of it, but found the lack of any real consensus as to what separated next-gen anchors from past-gen rather disturbing. Then a thought came to me. Virtually all older anchors have their ardent proponents, (eg FF with the CQR, Mark with his Bruce), but they are usually described as being great in such and such a condition, bottom, whatever, but known to not perform well in or under other specified conditions. In other words, they tend to have some kind of Achilles Heel.

Whereas the next-gen anchors are generally characterised by the fact that they do tend to work well in virtually all conditions, bottoms, tides and currents, and are quick and reliable to set, with no stand-out weaknesses. That's my 10 cents anyway.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the flowers Peter. Nice on this rainy day.

I agree w all of it. No perfect anchor and never will be perfect. But we’re much much closer to that now than ever before. I especially like the “no stand out weakness”. And re my comments about the Rocna above .. they have no stand out weakness. One won’t usually find a stand out weakness on even a long boat trip. But on a big serious anchor test where they pull w 5,000lbs of tension on the rode holding power shortcomings are sure to surface. And w setting and veering ect. Most all next-gen anchors have so much holding power it really dosn’t matter much what one buys. Now the most important DIFFERENCE one will find in a next-gen anchor is in setting ect. That’s why Steve’s Vids were so revealing .. and valuable.