Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by JonJo

But I am sure Noelex' CQR will be an equal and adequate replacement for his ROCNA, why else does he carry it? Interesting, considering his negative comments of the design (and convex in particular), that he keeps it as his back-up - seems terribly contradictory

I am wondering why you feel personal attacks help your cause????? Not that I really understand what your cause is.

But I would bet he carries a CQR because it is a back-up anchor and he had it already.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

It is always remarkable to me that two very different approaches to anchor design Spade and Rocna/MS produce such similar overall practical results. I think the Rocna/MS is slightly better, but I am always keen to observe anchor performance any change my mind..

I don't dive on my anchors like you do, in these frigid waters, but I have more than a decade experience with Spade and 3 years with Rocna, and think I can compare.

The Spade sets better and much more aggressively than the Rocna in all conditions. Huge difference in setting behavior. Rocna floats in soft mud, and skips over sand sometimes. Spade digs right into anything other than rock.

Both hold faultlessly, once set. Never dragged either one, not one single time, despite some incredible adventures.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Start looking at the new Navy Many ultra modern, state of the art 300' warships carry one anchor located dead centre in the bow.

And a spare one on the Starboard side, just in case.

Originally Posted by JonJo

Ark Royal carried 2 stockless - they were so efficient they had a junior officer specifically on anchor watch, when they had dragged (which was inevitable), whatever preset distance was determined they raised anchor, motored back up and started the sequence again.

Which is now on its way to become tin cans and razor blades, anchors and all.

Originally Posted by JonJo

I am equally sure that all those carrying those bigger anchors, 50% higher than recommended, carry a back up anchor of equal weight and capacity - though quite how you store and deploy a 55kg anchor (in the absence of 2 bow rollers) would be a thread in itself.

Oh come on now Jonathan, you're on a yacht, which has a mast plus a shed load of rope and two long aluminium poles (boom+spinnaker). It's the sort of exercise you would give 14 yr old sea cadets to work out.

Originally Posted by JonJo

Our old gen anchors collect dust at home now.

If we ever visit Ireland or Scotland then I will be taking the old folding fisherman anchor which decorates the garden with us, rest assured.


Pete

[congo]

I think many on this forum have reached a consensus that bigger is better, regardless when speaking to the broader public at boat shows they are not as easily convinced and would back much of what Jonathan say's, it’s a free world for one to believe what he wants.

If you go back before the new generation anchors without roll bar concave design, spade for instance, Ultra, Fortress, Bugle no one specified bigger is better, didn’t have to, they performed solid as sold supplying far greater holding power in multiple sea bed types, sure if your anchor is boarder line then the next size up is sensible, none of those manufactures specified bigger is better, further Cobra in fact state you use a smaller anchor size than standard, so yes I think Jonathan makes a lot of sense, since the introduction of roll bar concave consensus from the Cruisers forum seems to be, not one, but two sizes bigger?

I don’t believe for a minute that the roll bar concave designs are not capable of producing the high holding power figures that we have seen, problem being is that this combination of roll bar concave is not successful in as many varying types of sea bed, so was born bigger is better, if you want a true consensus from this bigger is better thread, look back over the pages, all other anchor types dragging in multiple sea floor is far less than the amount of concave roll bar designs dragging, skipping not setting, some taking them of, most of the argument I believe has been shielding their decision to purchase something, that has turned out to be not quite the outcome some would have expected, two sizes bigger fixes the problem.

If you look at Noelexs octopus Rocna, by no means is that a well set anchor, Noelex stated himself in this it was subject to 25 knots of wind, one would think power setting would not have buried it any further than the twenty five knots, it has a large cavity with the rear fluke well exposed, a great chain catcher in a strong wind shift, it may not tangle but the octopus Rocna is very inviting to be pulled out tangle, where as a smaller or of more specified size it would be buried, nowhere for the chain to tangle and would get the bypass from his octopi, his photo is a perfect spot for a smaller anchor to bury, depth produces far more holding power, stability in all weather conditions than shallow sets regardless of all argument.

I certainly would not like to leave the boat unattended with a poor set like that, however I also think bigger is better has its place, very soft substrate such as Port Phillip bay where larger surface area creates more resistance and the anchor can still bury, this gets back to everything we have ever been taught by our for fathers, use the correct size anchor and carry a larger one for storm application.

I think to judge Jonathans criticisms by the consensus of this forum, of bigger is better, as to being judged based on the many passionate variables is foolish and slightly one sided.

Regards Rex.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I am wondering why you feel personal attacks help your cause????? Not that I really understand what your cause is.

Maybe you should consider the incessant posts on convex anchors by people who have never used them and of designs they have never seen and possibly direct the same question there.

My cause carries no financial motives but continued subjective attacks without foundation might impact commercial enterprises, you might not object - I do, sorry.

Jonathan

[Panope]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Start looking at the new Navy Many ultra modern, state of the art 300' warships carry one anchor located dead centre in the bow.................................

Ark Royal carried 2 stockless -.................

In the Med it is very common for commercial ferries, think Greek islands, to moor stern to the quay - commonly to let cars and trucks off. They manouvre such they can approach stern first and drop both bow anchors, often in a 'V' formation. The anchors hold the ferry in a cross wind (but needs two bow anchors). Its obviously a skill in which they are very well practised. Yachts do the same, they tend to be less skilled, but only use one anchor. Sometime they conduct this manouvre stern or bow in. A smaller, tripping slot anchor is ideal.............................


I am equally sure that all those carrying those bigger anchors, 50% higher than recommended, carry a back up anchor of equal weight and capacity - though quite how you store and deploy a 55kg anchor (in the absence of 2 bow rollers) would be a thread in itself. After all not much point in lugging it around if your second anchor will not actually replace the first.................

Jonathan

So many of the points in JonJo's above post applies to me I had to chime in.

-Anchor dead center in bow. Check.
-Stockless anchor. Check.
-Anchoring stern to shore with tripping slot anchor. Check.
-Big, 50% higher than recommended anchors. Check.
-Easy to deploy big second anchor without two bow rollers. Check

Steve

[cheoah]

After a great deal of thought, I've finally ordered a 35 lb Mantus. I know that some people size up to a 45 lb anchor for my 34' boat, but I really think that the 35 lb is the right anchor for most of what I'll encounter, since I'm on my storm mooring during hurricane season.

I've set two anchors on many occasions, for hurricanes, tropical storms or even gales, but I loathe setting two anchors. So this 35 is going to serve as the sole bower. I intend to sell the CQR 35 and Bruce 33 that are on the bow rollers now. The stowed FX-23 will serve as a backup, as well as another Danforth stern anchor, but I will count on this Mantus 35 to carry the flag.

And it is not upsized, because I don't think it is necessary, and I don't want to deal with handling a bigger anchor than I need. Will let you know how it goes

I'm also going to try their grab hooks too.

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by congo

Noelex

Concave anchor design Ultra and spade, these two anchor designs as time pass more and more anchor test's will be done and mark my words, the other brands of concave simply do not rate against ultra and spade.

Convex anchor design in the near future via independent testing will show they are superior over concave, I will be sure to bring it to attention, spade and Ultra’s ability to set is certainly not impeded by their toe design, you may be talking a distance of maybe the fluke length if you are lucky, certainly no down side there.

I hear the real world mentioned often, well it’s about time that some tuned in.

Regards Rex.

I used to own a Spade and you're wrong when you say "spade and Ultra’s ability to set is certainly not impeded by their toe design". (Although I can't speak about Ultra). Spade has problems setting in hard-packed sand, even more so with the lighter AL model. It's not the AL (as Fortress doesn't have a setting issue) it's the Spade's thick triangular toe design.

I sold my Aluminum Spade after dragging due to failure to get a good set in such a bottom. Bought a Manson Supreme, now using a Canadian Rocna, and haven't ever had failure to set with either.

BTW Rex, your constant harping about convex vs concave is starting to rub me like Craig Smith did in past years. I think you're believing your own BS. Time to give it a rest, IMHO

Now I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread so don't expect any more from me on this.

Edit: btw Fortress' problem is resetting. Also I've used convex anchors such as Delta and they don't come close to the holding or setting of the MS/Rocna

[Stumble]

My issue with the spade is that as far as I know the manufacturer has not sought certification for the design from any of the class societies. Frankly I don't care which one, and they all have SHHP equivalents. As far as I am concerned this is a minimum baseline for any anchor I would consider.

At a minimum type approval is required to even be relevant to the conversation these days.

[congo]

Re: Anchors, Bigger is Better? POSTED BY SAILFASTRI
Quote:
Originally Posted by congo
Noelex

Concave anchor design Ultra and spade, these two anchor designs as time pass more and more anchor test's will be done and mark my words, the other brands of concave simply do not rate against ultra and spade.

Convex anchor design in the near future via independent testing will show they are superior over concave, I will be sure to bring it to attention, spade and Ultra’s ability to set is certainly not impeded by their toe design, you may be talking a distance of maybe the fluke length if you are lucky, certainly no down side there.

I hear the real world mentioned often, well it’s about time that some tuned in.

Regards Rex.

I used to own a Spade and you're wrong when you say "spade and Ultra’s ability to set is certainly not impeded by their toe design". (Although I can't speak about Ultra). Spade has problems setting in hard-packed sand, even more so with the lighter AL model. It's not the AL (as Fortress doesn't have a setting issue) it's the Spade's thick triangular toe design.

I sold my Aluminum Spade after dragging due to failure to get a good set in such a bottom. Bought a Manson Supreme, now using a Canadian Rocna, and haven't ever had failure to set with either.

BTW Rex, your constant harping about convex vs concave is starting to rub me like Craig Smith did in past years. I think you're believing your own BS. Time to give it a rest, IMHO

Now I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread so don't expect any more from me on this.

Edit: btw Fortress' problem is resetting. Also I've used convex Deltas and they don’t come close to the holding or setting of the MS/ Rocna.

Rex Wrote:

I think you may have taken this out of context from another thread and gate crashed the BIB THREAD, I could be wrong but cannot be bothered checking.

Well you are bit late on the scene with this one and quite good at selecting a section to make your point, I was talking steel spade, Delta I will agree is low holding compared to the anchors you have now.

Well I suppose I have been accused of conspiracy (Anchor Right Gang), Paid authorities to jig results, C/ Smith is a bit below the belt, and your last compliment BS. We are passionate guys us inventors and sometimes need our manners put back in order but that’s a bit rough, for your information it is not BS. that I speak and can back up all I say if I was allowed to with documented evidence.

Just for your own exercise, post the U tube videos from our web site, Super Sarca in action, Excel in action, go hard and explain to your audience the BS. In that, make a name yourself my friend before you label me, this forum is all about concave, why do you find it unusual that I push convex, both of our anchor designs are of convex and I won’t be changing as to the evidence from our videos, and independent recorded holding power figures, I am truly sorry you will not be responding as you may learn something from this thread.

If I have upset your apple cart Iam truly sorry.


Regards Rex.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Stumble

My issue with the spade is that as far as I know the manufacturer has not sought certification for the design from any of the class societies.

The Steel Spade has EHHP certification. (Extreme High Holding Power)

OK, I made that up , but I have seen Spade anchors hold boats when the load would be 5x the SHHP requirement. Many different sizes were tested, under real world conditions, in a range of substrates, often less than ideal. Veering tests were also required for certification (unlike SHHP) as was the ability to hold at less than the 10:1 scope permitted for the now superseded SHHP requirement.

If Spade are listening, PM me for my Paypal details and I will send out the EHHP certificate and sticker.

[congo]

I have to fully agree with STUMBLE, a tested anchor is the least one should expect from a Manufacturer if he is going to state a holding power category, H/H/Power or S/H/H/Power anchors are subject to far greater loads as they do in fact produce more holding power,
Noelex I believe does not know to much about this and the benefits as his comments leaves him hollow, but that’s his take on it so no point arguing.

Proof testing is extremely tough on anchors and the only way to appreciate the benefits is to be present when it is being done.

Field performance may not bring out the benefits of proof testing until you find yourself in a situation that anything less may have failed.

Regards Rex

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by Stumble

My issue with the spade is that as far as I know the manufacturer has not sought certification for the design from any of the class societies. Frankly I don't care which one, and they all have SHHP equivalents. As far as I am concerned this is a minimum baseline for any anchor I would consider.

At a minimum type approval is required to even be relevant to the conversation these days.

If you have a 55kg Rocna (or heavier) then it has a genuine RINA Cert, but (if you are going to be picky) they do not backdate so only Chinese made 55kg and larger qualify as SHHP. CS are twitchy about casting - but being realistic all Rocnas should qualify (I cannot understand why they, CMP, have not clarified). All Manson Supremes qualify as SHHP under Lloyds (I stand to be corrected) and all Super SARCAs and Excels meet SHHP (under Australian rules - and as you do not care who does it - that should suffice). Some Fortress meet SHHP (and I suspect if they paid the monies all would meet). Ultra meet SHHP, not sure of the range - but I suspect all.

That's the choice for leisure anchors for SHHP.

SHHP certification costs a lot of money - someone has to pay, guess who it is, at the end of the day?

Classification Society approval, or certification, might not be perfect - but it does monitor production process. It does look and test fundamental design. It does test for strength (even if Proof Testing seems a bit focussed) and the holding capacity testing of CS and magazines does 'conform'.

But Stumble - you will find a whole host of people - if you read back through the thread, who will disagree with you

But really you are suggesting to be considered seriously one should restrict choice to:

Rocna, Manson Supreme, Ultra, Fortress, Super SARCA and Excel?

If you factor in price and availability you have a pretty restricted choice unless you live in 'The Lucky Country' - where every single one of these is available at a chandler near you

Jonathan

[conachair]

Originally Posted by JonJo

I am equally sure that all those carrying those bigger anchors, 50% higher than recommended,

Does anyone here actually carry one 50% over?

Seems a lot.

Actually, just checking on the Rocna site, for my boat 2 sizes up (of what they say is high already) is 50%.
Or 10Kg. Not much or anyone thinking of world gurdling high latitudes. Why else would anyone go so heavy?

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by conachair

Does anyone here actually carry one 50% over?

Seems a lot.

Actually, just checking on the Rocna site, for my boat 2 sizes up (of what they say is high already) is 50%.
Or 10Kg. Not much or anyone thinking of world gurdling high latitudes. Why else would anyone go so heavy?

Yup - you have taken the words out of my mouth

Jonathan