Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[congo]

Hooly dooly Cotemar, thats the best you have come up with, heres the thing, you really should stop guessing , do some research, or stop talking about something you have absolutlely no knowledge of.

Leave it to Noelex, at least he has the ability to make it sound believable.

No intention to offend, but thats a cracker.

Regards Rex.

[Cotemar]

congo,
I have used them and done the research and I have the knowledge and that is what I have experienced. We used the Convex plow anchors for many years.

At the time I was just as passionate about Convex plow anchors as you are today. I thought that an anchor watch a 2am is just what you had to do as a cruiser.

Today I know better. And sleep well

I do not know your cruising experience and do not refer to it. I only know your passion for Convex plow anchors. Please to not refer to my cruising experience as if you were my bud, as you do not know me or my experience as a cruiser.

[Hudson Force]

Oh...Oh! I've got one! How about considering that the concave anchors, when lifting the sea floor, are releasing methane and carbon-dioxide products of organic decomposition resulting in global warming. As it follows, of course, the convex anchors are gently introducing more surface nutrients and oxygenated water to promote photosynthetic plants that reduce global warming. Run with that!

[congo]

As I said Cotemar I meant no offence: it was just this, your punch line I thought was humorous given the discussions concave veres convex. Cotemar Wrote:At 2am in the morning on a dark, gusting, windy and rainy night I am not thinking about how easily and clean my anchor will break out. I am sleeping

Well for your information Cotemar I have been boating for near on 30 years, tried nearly all anchor designes, I have vast experience in anchor development for over twenty years,I might add years of testing concave before any one thought of it, perfected it then droped it for obvious reasons, I do not profess to no it all and do not state we make perfect anchors, but heres the thing, we deal supply to all corners of the industy, commercial, yachts, trailor boats. You learn a thing or two, you continue to refer to our product as a plough anchor simply because it is convex, heres another thing ,difference being our convex anchors do not plow, you have never used one , you make armchair comments with no sustance , that is why I say do some research.

Give me a break Cotemar, those anchors you have used CQR style and others are a far cry from our designs, I was not refering to your experience as cruiser, you could probably teach me a thing or two, I was simply refering to your knowledge on our designs, seeing you are not an anchor designer then your expertise in this area from I see is insignificant, without trying just condeming.

I certainly would not condem your advice on cruising experiences until I had least tried it out myself.

Anyway lets not get to serious hear.

Regards Rex.

[congo]

Captforce, it is not me that is demonstrating the downside of concave and the problems they have, it is the confessions of this forum.

Regards Rex.

[onestepcsy37]

since when is mud a living breathing thing?

this thread is starting to sound too much like the old 'craig of rocna' thread. i'm outta here....

[Cotemar]

Congo,

I apologize to you if you think I was talking about your anchors as I am not.

I am talking about Convex Plow Anchors.

If you and I were best friends and you were to tell me your passion for Convex Plow Anchors. As your best friend I would still feel the same way about them and tell you I do not like Convex Plow Anchors because of the bad experiences we had with them.

In the end, even as buds we will never agree on Convex Plow Anchors. You like them, I do not.
At this point we just agree to disagree and have a beer and talk about mono hull boats verses catamarans and have another beer.

It’s all good, as in the end, it’s just an anchor. Everyone uses the anchor they like.

[congo]

Well then Cotemar no appolodgy needed, we have something in common, I have never said I like plough anchors either, prefer to leave the convex out as plough and convex should not be used in the same verse when discussing our designs.

I will also add, as an anchor manufacturer i have learnt the ins and outs of a plow anchor and have developed a great respect for the designer, the origional CQR was certainly not as bad as what is said about them and were far more capable than many have experienced, most comment on the down side of CQR is created by copies, flogged out swivel pins, worn out CQR'S.

Of course anchor technolodgy moves on but I found concave without the plough shears had some good stuff to offer.

Regards Rex.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by congo

further it is neccessary to go up two sizes as if you dont want to be able to anchor in no more than a CQR will, all be it you will feel like you have hit a brick wall.

Well we have been hitting brick walls and the latter, staying put in many types of sea beds here in Australaia without recommending two anchor sizes bigger, for the last 18 years.

Not so I my case anyway, cqr replaced with closest size available (slightly larger) in concave, massive difference, digs in immediately, holds much better, just a better anchor. Same as most experiences you will find around the forums or in the liveaboard bars. Don't know where the "2 sizes larger than the one replaced" idea came from, I don't think that's the case at all. It's just that spade/manson/rocna etc are better all round anchors than the likes of cqr.

[JonJo]

Cotemar,

A minor point, the SARCA Excel and Super SARCA have down turned toes. The opposite, I think to what you alluded.

[zeehag]

i love my genyoowhine bruce 30 kg best--i want 3 more of these..i wanna anchor like a oil rig. i wanna tear up the sea floor because if i pull up a nice clean anchor i havent set it right. and cod know i wont drag anchor even if someone sets theirs on top of one of mine.

[Cotemar]

Jonjo,

You may have a differnet term for it over there, but I would call the dashed red line, Problem bend the spine of the anchor

[Kettlewell]

Two random points remarking on various earlier comments:

1. I have seen a big Spade anchor come up with a huge glob of weed and mud after the boat dragged anchor while setting it, but I suspect he never had out enough scope in the first place. He cleaned off the mess, and went outside the harbor to anchor.

2. I mainly used CQRs as my primary anchor up to 2005, with thousands of sets everywhere from New Brunswick to the Caribbean, and I can only recall a couple of instances of dragging, and they were pretty unusual conditions. So, I will have a hard time comparing the new-gen anchors to the old, because I never had problems with the old!

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Jonjo,

You may have a differnet term for it over there, but I would call the dashed red line, Problem bend the spine of the anchor

We are tending to call or describe the fluke in terms of ones foot, so we have toes, heels, soles - on that basis we would call the bit to which you refer the instep - which would leave concave anchors very flat footed

The aspect you describe may be valid for old fashioned convex ploughs, but Kettlewell would beg to differ (and there are many people who have used old fashioned ploughs with considerable success0. The problem is people are lumping old fashioned convex anchors with more modern designs and attributing facets of the old design to the new, even though they have never seen the new. It might be people are not making clear the differences when they attribute some negative aspect of old fashioned convex and they never mean to imply these negative aspects are part of the new. I can assure you the new Convex designs are factorially better than the old, they behave completely differently - their point of commonality is they (the old and the new) are both convex.

its a bit like comparing a Bruce to a Rocna or a Supreme to a Spade and amybe a Boss to any of them. They are all concave but they all perform differently, and arguably a Spade is factorially better than a Bruce.


But a point of education for me - and to avoid confusion.

What is the correct terms for an anchor of the Danforth or Fortress design. I have seen them called, 'traditional' or even 'fishermens' - but to me these (Trad and Fish) are Lukes, Herreschoffs- or the sort a child might draw. I have heard them called 'sand' anchors, I have used 'plate' and sometimes 'danforth styles'. So what are they called, recalling there are things like Brittanys to throw into the mix.

Again a Fortress looks like a Danforth but the Fortress, again arguably, performs factorially better.


I also note the Australian contingent who were major contributors to the Supreme, Excel and SARCA threads seem to have almost disappeared without trace. I wonder if they were upset, a cultural reaction, to the closure of 'their' threads - or maybe the title of this thread was inadequate. But they must be a sad loss to the Forum, and advertisers.

[Kettlewell]

R.D. Ogg and R.S. Danforth, the inventors of the type, referred to the Danforth-type technically as "stock-stabilized, pivoting fluke" anchors. They were more commonly called "lightweight type" anchors back in the day, but everybody over here in the USA calls them just "Danforths" or "Fortresses." I sometimes call a Fortress a "Danforth-type."