Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by careka

Boat came with a Delta 20 kg, changed it out with a Rocna 20kg, but now went up to 33kg Rocna, i like to sleep well. on a Lagoon 380.

We are just like you, Lightwave 38, and we use a 15kg, gal, Excel and have been sleeping well, through Tasmanian Storms - not even laying a second anchor. Looking forward to testing the alloy model, 8.5kg, with the 7075 shank (same size as the 15kg model) Takes all sorts.

Jonathan

[gspeak]

Originally Posted by careka

Boat came with a Delta 20 kg, changed it out with a Rocna 20kg, but now went up to 33kg Rocna, i like to sleep well. on a Lagoon 380.

Also a Lagoon 380. Boat came with a 30kg Manson Plough, changed it out with a 30 kg Sarca Excel, I like to sleep really really well

Dave

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

You've convinced me of one thing.
My next anchor will be either another Spade or a Rocna
because I can see that if I had a problem
or even a question with a Sarca
I wouldn't get a straight answer from you.

As an aside . . . . I would suggest to Rex that his tone and manner here is in fact counter productive, because this was also my experience.

I am a "serious" cruiser, seriously looking to buy a second "main" anchor. I was seriously interested what the excel had to offer. I asked some questions here which Rex brushed off. He 'challenged" me to contact him directly, which I did, but in direct communication he continued to be snarky and not answer simple direct questions.

My current 'best choices' seem to be spade (but I don't like the re galvanizing problem) and ultra (but the cost makes me choke a little). I am replacing a rocna (which I sold), so it is NOT on the list.

But back On topic . . . BIB is better . . .

If Jojo is going to carry multiple anchors to suit multiple bottoms, I would suggest that he look at the two anchors that actually do suit bottom conditions different than the "next gen" types perform well in . . . Eg the Bruce types and the fisherman. They both work well in bottoms where the "next gen" types struggle. The fisherman even comes in de mountable versions, which Jojo seems to like. If your objective is to match anchor to bottom type it makes little sense to carry a bunch of anchors that all are optimized for the same bottom condition.

In my opinion, there is too much emphasis on holding in "goog penetrating" bottom conditions and not enough emphasis in more difficult and complex bottoms.

I will also comment that in actual practice this strategy seems more a "small boat" approach, with anchors under say 45lbs. I know very few "bigger boats" that want to switch anchors depending on bottom. They tend to go single BIB main anchor.

There is also a question how you actually know what the bottom is, in order to match the anchor to it. In the tropics you can dive if you want to, but in mid and higher latitudes it is less pleasant to dive. And it can be a bit deep for airless diving, and using air becomes a major project.

Regarding why you might want larger anchors which have "excessive" holding power in anchor tests . . . . There are two reasons . . . (1) usually those anchor tests are conducted in decently good bottoms while sometimes we anchor is less good bottoms where that "excessive" holding power becomes only adequate. (2) anchor performance is NOT only about holding power. Setting is at least as important (I would suggest more important but that's another debate) and our experience is that bigger anchors set better in bad conditions than littler ones. The pure absolute tip weight of bigger anchors helps in weeds and hard sand.

[Dennis.G]

I have replaced my 65 lb CQR main anchor with an 85 lb Mantus (galv). Secured to 3/8" chain without swivel. Every time since new anchor I have set anchor on first try, and have never dragged. This is on a 48" ketch. Currently in Sea of Cortez Mexico, where bottoms are usually good, but have sat through some high winds and waves. Very happy with investment.

I will not argue the how and why, but just to share my experience with what I consider a good new generation anchor. The 85 pounds is recommended size per Mantus for working anchor, and seems more than enough. Seems very large compared to old anchor.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Noelex,

Reverting back to your negativity on Classification Society testing - Rocna has SHHP for its anchors from RINA (and I have nothing against RINA). Are you saying this certification is a complete waste of time and nor worth the paper (or web space) its printed on?

I share some of your criticisms but its all we have and thus, I think, better than nothing.

Jonathan

I really don't think it has much relevance.

I don't even know if my Rocna anchor is certified. I purchased it (from memory) before there was any certification. Rocna subsequently claimed they had been awarded certification, but my understanding is that was not the case.

Rocna have subsequently got SHHP certification and no one is jumping up and down, so I assume this is genuine, but is it for the NZ model or the Chinese model? I have no idea. As the construction is different between the two the classification of the Chinese model would not cover my NZ version.

When I actually own the anchor in question my apathy (on a anchoring question no less ) perhaps gives you some idea of the importance I place on the the awarding of the SHHP classification.

Whin a few days of getting the anchor it was subject to a holding test far more severe than the SHHP rating and it has endured many more since. There is no way I could foresee bending the shank of my anchor with a pure vertical load (which is the only load tested by the classification).

The Christmas bow my wife tied on for its first drop, is almost as meaningful an award

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

As an aside . . . . I would suggest to Rex that his tone and manner here is in fact counter productive, because this was also my experience.

I am a "serious" cruiser, seriously looking to buy a second "main" anchor. I was seriously interested what the excel had to offer. I asked some questions here which Rex brushed off. He 'challenged" me to contact him directly, which I did, but in direct communication he continued to be snarky and not answer simple direct questions.

My current 'best choices' seem to be spade (but I don't like the re galvanizing problem) and ultra (but the cost makes me choke a little). I am replacing a rocna (which I sold), so it is NOT on the list.

But back On topic . . . BIB is better . . .

If Jojo is going to carry multiple anchors to suit multiple bottoms, I would suggest that he look at the two anchors that actually do suit bottom conditions different than the "next gen" types perform well in . . . Eg the Bruce types and the fisherman. They both work well in bottoms where the "next gen" types struggle. The fisherman even comes in de mountable versions, which Jojo seems to like. If your objective is to match anchor to bottom type it makes little sense to carry a bunch of anchors that all are optimized for the same bottom condition.

In my opinion, there is too much emphasis on holding in "goog penetrating" bottom conditions and not enough emphasis in more difficult and complex bottoms.

I will also comment that in actual practice this strategy seems more a "small boat" approach, with anchors under say 45lbs. I know very few "bigger boats" that want to switch anchors depending on bottom. They tend to go single BIB main anchor.

There is also a question how you actually know what the bottom is, in order to match the anchor to it. In the tropics you can dive if you want to, but in mid and higher latitudes it is less pleasant to dive. And it can be a bit deep for airless diving, and using air becomes a major project.

Regarding why you might want larger anchors which have "excessive" holding power in anchor tests . . . . There are two reasons . . . (1) usually those anchor tests are conducted in decently good bottoms while sometimes we anchor is less good bottoms where that "excessive" holding power becomes only adequate. (2) anchor performance is NOT only about holding power. Setting is at least as important (I would suggest more important but that's another debate) and our experience is that bigger anchors set better in bad conditions than littler ones. The pure absolute tip weight of bigger anchors helps in weeds and hard sand.

Re: the Ultra after a year's use.....

1. It's geometry is unbelievably complex, combining convex and concave elements. I have no idea how they form it that way.
2. Because of the hollow shank and sealed lead toe more of the anchor's weight is in the tip than any other design, with the Spade a close second.
3. Combine its tip weight with its geometry and it might be the best anchor design out there, although I still very much like what I see in the test results of the Excel.
4. I am told that that they can be purchased for less in Turkey where they are made. If you make your purchase at a trade show, you'll be surprised what kind of a deal you can strike, especially if you buy a display model.
5. The stainless is pretty, but it also means it comes up mostly completely clean of muck. A small detail, perhaps, but still nice.
6. I'd as soon walk barefoot in a blizzard than dive up here in the PNW to see what's going on with my hook, but the anchor seems to dive deep. I have scratches on the entire top of the shank where the bed contained something hard enough to dig into the stainless. since these are perpendicular to the shank, they could only have occurred on rotation, where the anchor stayed put while buried and rotating.

On BIB, gravity is reality and a heavier anchor will dig in faster and deeper than the same design that is lighter, especially when anchoring in difficult bottoms. I just can't be convinced otherwise just on the basis of simple physics. Combine heavy with a proper snub line that absorbs cyclic loading, and you have as good a setup as you can get for a given design.

Speaking of snubbers, I ripped off your design to replace my old snubber, pictured and discussed here: Anchor snub lines

As is the case with Cotemar's knock off of the Tern, imitation is the best form of flattery, so thanks for your work on optimizing that critical piece of anchoring gear.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Re: the Ultra after a year's use.....

1. It's geometry is unbelievably complex, combining convex and concave elements. I have no idea how they form it that way.

The most complex (and sexy) anchor on the market. It has a lot of great design elements. To avoid any terminology confusion the blade is a concave design just slightly turned down tip.

[estarzinger]

^^ yup! I lean toward the ultra for all those reasons.

I lean away from "making deals" when I buy product, because in the past we have had MFG's think that gives them some right or control over what Beth & I write or say about their products despite that never having been a discussed part of the deal and something I will never agree with. We even had one mfg threaten to sue us because we did not write at all about their product even though they give us no deal at all . . . I told them to go ahead and take it to court. It's one of the drawbacks to being "known" . . . Things can get a bit more complex.

But that all said it might be worth discussing the price with the ultra folks while making my position very clear re our desired to be able to write and talk honestly about the product.

I think I need a 40 or 50 kg size. After your experience, Do you have any opinion about sizing for us?

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I am replacing a rocna (which I sold), so it is NOT on the list..

Evans, may I ask why you sold your Rocna?
It wasn't around
(or wasn't well-known) back when I was sidelined,
and since my attempts to catch up on nautical progress
(hence my questions here)
I have not run into any negative press about it
(other than personal tirades aimed at the PEOPLE behind the anchor).
I'd appreciate the opportunity to hear that side of the story.

- Shas

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The most complex (and sexy) anchor on the market. It has a lot of great design elements. To avoid any terminology confusion the blade is a concave design just slightly turned down tip.

Well, that's not how the manufacturer describes it, perhaps because it has a convex underside and a concave upper side. I'm afraid you clarification de-clarifies.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

Evans, may I ask why you sold your Rocna?
s

Sure . . . Three reasons.

1. We lost confidence in it. We dragged several times. More than we did with our other main anchor (a Ray). That may or may not be unfair to the anchor because we did not have A/B comparison and our other anchor may have also dragged in those particular situations. But we wrote off the first and second drags, but by the third we had lost confidence.

2. I did not like the roll bar. It blocked us from picking up a morning buoy over the extra bow roller. And I think (without any scientific proof) it hinders digging in, and hangs up on heavy kelp.

3. Craig Smith publicly attacked and insulted me after we published our Chile anchor test results, despite the fact their anchor did not come out badly. And then they lied about various things. It's too bad because I considered Peter a friend, but I did not want to have their anchor on my bow.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Well, that's not how the manufacturer describes it, perhaps because it has a convex underside and a concave upper side. I'm afraid you clarification de-clarifies.

While there is not always agreement on anchor threads I can only hope that we are going to refer to the shape of the upper surface otherwise a Delta and CQR is concave and a Rocna is convex and that might be a tad confusing

This is how Ulta describe their fluke (my emphasis)
• Max Holding Power Base – The concaved base/fluke has the appearance of a spade or shovel, and has extreme holding power with a greater surface area than conventional style anchors.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

^^ yup! I lean toward the ultra for all those reasons.

I lean away from "making deals" when I buy product, because in the past we have had MFG's think that gives them some right or control over what Beth & I write or say about their products despite that never having been a discussed part of the deal and something I will never agree with. We even had one mfg threaten to sue us because we did not write at all about their product even though they give us no deal at all . . . I told them to go ahead and take it to court. It's one of the drawbacks to being "known" . . . Things can get a bit more complex.

But that all said it might be worth discussing the price with the ultra folks while making my position very clear re our desired to be able to write and talk honestly about the product.

I think I need a 40 or 50 kg size. After your experience, Do you have any opinion about sizing for us?

Just wear a set of those Groucho glasses and don't tell them who you are. Beth should leave them off, though.

Once you get to the point where you give them a credit card, you've already set the price, so there should be no assumptions of some kind of quid pro quo.

Regarding sizing, I recall you have been using a Manson Ray of around 120#. I replaced an 80 kg Claw, that never let me down and held Delfin when I stupidly anchored her in a small cove subject to williwaws during a full storm on the West coast of Vancouver Island and dealt with 50 knots all night. I chose an 80 kg Ultra and about the only differences I can detect is that once down, it seems to set immediately, and I have to get right over it most times to break it free, meaning it has buried itself pretty well overnight. I like Ultra's size selection chart since it differentiates between types of vessels and include both displacement and length. Based on that chart, they'd have you use a 60#, which would likely work for most people, but you aren't most people so I would simply go with a comparable weight to what you had by getting a 45kg. That would be my approach, and it should fit fine.

Hint: you should be able to find one for the price of a 35 kg.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

While there is not always agreement on anchor threads I can only hope that we are going to refer to the shape of the upper surface otherwise a Delta and CQR is concave and a Rocna is convex and that might be a tad confusing

A dragon tooth concave anchor made out of relatively flat surfaces only presents resistance on the upper side of the fluke. On the Ultra, the convex shape of the bottom compresses the soil providing resistance to dragging and becomes additive to the resistant force generated by the concave top. Whether this confuses some or not is pretty immaterial to the physics involved. What matters is which surfaces contribute to the holding characteristics of the hook. On a CQR or Rocna or Mantus or whatever, the only surfaces that make that contribution is the top side of the fluke and on a hoop style anchor the hoop itself, although that tends to inhibit digging in. On the Ultra, top and bottom design matter.

[Panope]

Evans,

It is rare to hear about peoples experience with the Ray anchor. Could you please give us an idea of its performance compared to a genuine Bruce?

Thanks, Steve