Anchor Surface Area Comparison - Manson Supreme vs CQR

[Kettlewell]

Not that it really means anything for those of us shopping for puny boat anchors, but those yellow oil rig anchors above have a convex fluke surface. Just saying!

[SA/USA]

Originally Posted by Kashmir cat

Funny. Come to think of it, my first Spade anchor (A100) I bought in 1999 direct from Tunesia didn't have any lead either. I used it primarily in sand and mud as a second anchor, was thrilled with it, and apparently was none the wiser. That anchor was sold with my old boat years ago. The steel Spade (S140) on the boat I have now has lead but I guess I better double check the aluminum ones (A140, A80).

No need to check your A80 and A140, they do have lead in the tip. All of the Spade anchors have 50% 0f the total weight of the anchor in the tip. This is done by putting lead in the cavity on either side. It may look like there is nothing in there, but there is. It is much easier to tell on the steel anchors, I can assure you that all of the Spade Anchors that have been made in recent years, do have lead in the tip.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Blue Stocking

Has anyone thought to ask a farmer how much power it takes to plough or harrow a field. After all, these guys were the ones who started the science of digging in and moving dirt aside with various shapes of implements.
Dockhead's multiple requests got me thinking, who knows more about shapes and soil dynamics than farmers?
I bet Massey-Ferguson knows. I'm serious. And yes- I am aware that we are talking about underwater conditions.

I sent a question to Bob Taylor, the long time anchor design & soil mechanics expert with the US Navy and offshore platform industries regarding concave, convex, and flat fluke shapes. I included the Sarca video on YouTube about convex vs. concave anchors. I can post the link if you want it, its titled "006 New Generation Anchor....."

A summary of Bob's comments:

"A normal agricultural plow is designed to till up the soil and is not allowed or designed to penetrate. A plow anchor is supposed to penetrate provided that its’ fluke angle is proper. If the angle is too high you get the behavior you see in the video. Also, note that the shank on the plow was elevated, which has a very negative effect on penetration."

I take away from Bob's comments that the shank/fluke angle is what determines whether a convex anchor (Delta) just plows along the sea bottom like a farm plow.....or whether it plows into the sea bottom and then quickly penetrates and buries.

Here are Bob's comments on concave, convex, and flat fluke shapes:

"An opinion is that flat or convex is better than concave in general. Most of the high capacity anchors have a slightly convex or flat fluke area. Even Bruce has gone flat for most of his anchors but he still has the wings to orient the anchor properly and trip into the seabed. The Bruce DENNLA uses a convex fluke shape and it actually outperforms his flat fluke designs.

Designing an anchor to perform properly is very complicated and it not easy to make generalizations on performance based on appearances."

Regards,
Brian

[Kettlewell]

Great stuff, thanks Brian!

[sailorboy1]

Gee all I'm learning is that I know nothing and that there isn't much agreement (except that Idon't know anything)

[craigsmith]

Pity the agendized wishful opinions don't bear out in reality.

The large scale drag-embedment anchors like the Stevpris pictured above are not a comparable type; their design criteria, requirements, and usage are very different to small boat anchors. Just as it's a bit silly to compare symmetrical flat-fluke Danforth styles to general purpose asymmetrical types.

Fortress need to seize on various little red herrings to further their fight against the new competitors they've woken up to. The focus on concave flukes and roll-bars should tell you all you need to know about that new reality.

[sailorboy1]

I think CF should send out an invite to every anchor manufacturer to a forum discussion battle! I bet this would become a good read, but in the end we wouldn't know much more than when it started! But we could always hope!

[Fortress]

I will not respond directly to Rocna's comments. You gentlemen can decide whether the observations of a guy who spent over 40 years in anchor design & soil mechanics hold more value than those from the young son of a new anchor designer.

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Gee all I'm learning is that I know nothing and that there isn't much agreement (except that Idon't know anything)

If you have successfully anchored without dragging in a variety of conditions, then I submit it to you that you do in fact know something.

A lot of these arguments about "which anchor" seem to me to dead-end at a couple of points. The first is that there is, or could be, a single "do it all" anchor. We have (at least where I live) the habit of switching from "summer" to "winter" tires, and benefit thereby, even given the greater friction and lower gas mileage when running on winter tires. That's the price we pay for greater stopping power on slick, icy or slushy roads.

All agree that "all-weather radials" are a compromise best left to people who get two weeks of cold weather a year. The quest for "the one anchor to hold them all/And to the bottom bind them" is equally a compromise. Even our friends and colleagues from Fortress, Spade and Rocna will admit that their products won't do any better (and perhaps a lot worse) in weeds and rocks.

The second point is that some old salts (or just new salts who've been paying attention to old salts) seemingly "get by" with feeble, discredited older anchor designs, such as the Bruce, popular on the Great Lakes still, because they a) never anchor in bottoms where the Bruce's deficiencies will manifest, or b) possess proper anchoring technique of knowing correct rode length, the use of chain, the use of kellets, snubbers and bridles and even diving on the anchor to ensure it has set firmly.

In other words, how much of the vaunted superiority of the new style of anchors can be attributed to the fact that they are forgiving of inadequate scope, inadequate chain, generally lax technique and so on?

Could it be that sailors who know how to anchor properly and to the conditions can make any well-made and time-tested anchor work? Could it be that those who break free lack the experience or the initiative to lay out sufficient scope, to rig bridles or even to know that the anchorage is not safe and that they should run to sea? How often does "running to sea" get listed under "anchor strategies of known success". And yet it is an important part of seamanship, knowing when to bug out in the face of gear-destroying conditions.

I do in fact think that the newer, lighter, broader, roll-bar-equipped designs have merit, and probably enough to persuade me to whip out the wallet. But I also contend that it is not always the inadequacies of previous long-standing (and long-holding) designs that is to blame, but the sometimes considerable lack of experience of the person standing over the anchor locker.

[Kettlewell]

I do in fact think that the newer, lighter, broader, roll-bar-equipped designs have merit, and probably enough to persuade me to whip out the wallet. But I also contend that it is not always the inadequacies of previous long-standing (and long-holding) designs that is to blame, but the sometimes considerable lack of experience of the person standing over the anchor locker.

Well said! In the motorcycle world we say that the most important piece of safety equipment is the nut holding the handlebars.

[Blue Stocking]

Thank you Brian. To me, this thread was becoming so frustrating with the opposing opinions, that I thought I might provoke a little "outside the box" thinking.
I now take a keener interest in the discussion. This week I fitted a massively built
stemhead roller, the chain lead from which, now conflicts with my 35lb CQR beak. So now, I am a potential buyer

[cfarrar]

An opinion is that flat or convex is better than concave in general.

This would suggest the CQR or old-style plow, all else being equal, would hold better than a Spade or Rocna. That's bogus, and everyone who's used both types of anchors knows this.

I submit that many members of this forum have more experience anchoring small boat than the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Coast Guard. Collectively, the members of this forum have considerably more wisdom than the "experts," even if forum members can't agree on the single best anchor.

[Kettlewell]

This would suggest the CQR or old-style plow, all else being equal, would hold better than a Spade or Rocna. That's bogus, and everyone who's used both types of anchors knows this.

Yes, but the highest holding power per pound in any legitimate test I have ever seen always goes to the Danforth type in the past and today the Fortress, which is entirely flat. Also, it is impossible to satisfy the "all else being equal" part of the equation. Just for example, does a 45-pound CQR have as much surface area as a 45-pound Rocna or Spade? Apparently not from the OP in this thread. In other words, one reason these "new generation" anchors hold better IMHO is that they devote more of their weight to increasing surface area than did older anchors like the CQR. The debate over the shape of that surface area came in later.

By the way, we all know that there is more to an anchor than surface area and shape. I can remember one tough near gale anchored in Key West with boats dragging all around me, while we held firm to our CQR anchor. After a day of this I dove down to take a look at the anchor and the only thing on the CQR that was hooked in was the very tip and it was stuck under some sort of old pipeline running across the harbor! In that situation pure strength and luck were the only things holding us.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

Could it be that sailors who know how to anchor properly and to the conditions can make any well-made and time-tested anchor work? Could it be that those who break free lack the experience or the initiative to lay out sufficient scope, to rig bridles or even to know that the anchorage is not safe and that they should run to sea? How often does "running to sea" get listed under "anchor strategies of known success". And yet it is an important part of seamanship, knowing when to bug out in the face of gear-destroying conditions.

I have anchored overnight for at 90 days a year for the last 20 years. For the last 3 years it has been over 300 days a year.
I have read everything I can get my hands on about anchoring (because its important to my safety). I snorkel and look how my anchor and others in the anchorage have set.

Can make any well-made and time-tested anchor work? No way!

There are many anchorages I cannot get an old a plow or Bruce anchor to set well. Its not lack of experience, they just don’t work in some locations and in almost all locations they don’t work as well as the new generation anchors.
Run to sea, yes its an option, but with the winter storms we get here not an appealing one (The last storm was typical and there 64 Knots in open water outside the anchorage)

My experience anchoring has taught me where to anchor, how to set an anchor with the correct scope and snubber, but more than anything its taught me get the best anchor you can, because no matter how much experience you have you are still dependent on that small lump of metal on the sea bed.

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

By the way, we all know that there is more to an anchor than surface area and shape. I can remember one tough near gale anchored in Key West with boats dragging all around me, while we held firm to our CQR anchor. After a day of this I dove down to take a look at the anchor and the only thing on the CQR that was hooked in was the very tip and it was stuck under some sort of old pipeline running across the harbor! In that situation pure strength and luck were the only things holding us.

Which, regrettably in some cases, is also part of anchoring. It's not always possible to dive on one's anchor (cold, murk, depth), but it's interesting to do it when you can, in order to see just how well you are in.

It's also fun to dive on other people's anchors in the same conditions. Some people aren't aware when they are breaking free and resetting, but the evidence is on the bottom. This is why I like those new "camera face masks" being sold for $100. Wins the argument.

Lastly, diving on other people's anchors can find you a lot of free anchors..the ones no longer in use, of course!