Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Shas, forget the monster locks you seem to need to keep intruders out, here no-one need to lock their doors. Not sure of where you live

Jonathan

Jonathan, I live in a remote canyon in the PNW.
We don't lock ANY of our doors
unless we plan to be gone for a week or more.
The point is that when we are considering security,
wise people do not consider "enough for most occasions" to be adequate.
Airplanes carry surplus fuel.
Mountain climbers use ropes rated in multiples of expected forces.
Deep divers carry more than "enough" compressed air.

I want my anchor to hold
even in a Perfect Storm on sub-optimal holding ground.
It's not about door locks, it's about BIB anchors.

- Shas

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

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

Absolutely.
More meaningful, in fact.
Certification is for a TYPE of anchor.
Your wife's bow was for the performance of THAT anchor.

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Sure . . . Three reasons.

Thanks.
Exactly what I was looking for.
Most refreshing

[noelex 77]

You can assemble the Spade fluke upside down and it becomes a convex anchor

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by 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

I will try, but realize that in the size we use we rarely have trouble with anchor performance. We have to anchor ALOT to accumulate enough "problem data" to be able to make a fair comparison.

We have much more experience with the genuine Bruce than with the Ray.

We loved the Bruce. The only place I remember having real trouble was Albany (SW Australia) where the locals said the sand was so hard that basically no anchor penetrated, and that matched our experience as we tried everything we had on board. We ended up dropping our two biggest anchors in tandom and all our chain and just sat on the weight and friction, as they did not dig in. But otherwise we had flawless experience with the Bruce.

I only have two years with the ray as our main bow anchor (we initially used the rocna as our main and the ray as our spare). Generally I would say the ray is close to the Bruce. It's my main anchor now and I have confidence in it. I personally think these anchors are the best "multi bottom" anchors because while they do a little less well in penetrating bottoms than the "next gen" designs (which we compensate for by sizing up) they seem to do much better is bad and non-penetrating bottoms.

But perhaps (not sure yet) the ray is a little less good performance than the Bruce on very short (2:1) scope. That is I have dragged the ray twice, but only when on very short scope . . . But also in very soft mud (and also some current), so it may be that the Bruce would have had trouble also. (Note: the rocna drags we had were with plenty if scope . . . More than 4:1. We knew from our testing that it would do badly in less than 3:1 and thus did not use it in those situations).

Both in our controlled testing and in our real world experience, the Bruce/ray designs are MUCH better at short scope than the rocna/supreme type designs. The rocna/supreme types need absolute minimum 3:1 to function well. I think their MFG's would say that is not a drawback because one should always use 3:1 or more, but the Bruce/ray type does give one more alternatives in places like English Harbour, or very tight little coves. I have no idea how the ultra or spade do at 2:1.

[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

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.

Well, I'm sure you must be right, and the below wrong, with your experience and observation of your Ultra the determining factor in resolving the question.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I have no idea how the ultra or spade do at 2:1.

Can't comment on the Spade, but I have lunch hooked without moving in 20 knots at 1.5:1 scope on the Ultra while crabbing. I was pretty surprised, and a friend suggested it was just because it weighs 160#. Perhaps so.

[Panope]

Thanks Evans. We also used and loved a Bruce for many years without problems in light to moderate conditions. My future cruise will likely involve heavy conditions so I retired the Bruce (33lb.) to under the V-birth. I picked up a second hand BIB Supreme that I am sure will hold the boat safely but the thing just does not have the appearance that I desire.

Steve

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Both in our controlled testing and in our real world experience, the Bruce/ray designs are MUCH better at short scope than the rocna/supreme type designs. The rocna/supreme types need absolute minimum 3:1 to function well. I think their MFG's would say that is not a drawback because one should always use 3:1 or more, but the Bruce/ray type does give one more alternatives in places like English Harbour, or very tight little coves. I have no idea how the ultra or spade do at 2:1.

I think that is a good comment. Backed up with a practical test.

http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/Main...hor%20test.pdf

One area where the new generation anchors have not improved over there old counterparts is performance on short scope.
The Bruce Anchor has always been regarded as exceptionally good on short scope. Its geometry is very different to most anchors so it is no surprise that it has different properties.

One caution I would add is that the Bruce is very size dependent. Large Bruce anchors (say 40kg +) seem to work much better than small versions.

The general consensus seems to be that the Spade works poorly on a short scope, but I did once see a spade holding a boat in 35-40 knots on a very short scope. The shank was lifted a long way off the bottom. I was very impressed, but it was an isolated incident. Overall I think the evidence is that the Spade is not great on a short scope, but I still have an open mind.

[bfloyd4445]

Originally Posted by Coops

Usually about now I crack another beer and keep reading the posts of the day. We are sailors as well as mods so we do have a personal interest in topics as well.

Coops.

.... moderators under the influence...te..he....no wonder my post keep getting deleted......guess i'll have grog...

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!

[Coops]

Originally Posted by bfloyd4445

.... moderators under the influence...te..he....no wonder my post keep getting deleted......guess i'll have grog...

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!

You are lucky that it is morning here then and I am sober and bright eyed.

Coops.

[bfloyd4445]

Originally Posted by Coops

You are lucky that it is morning here then and I am sober and bright eyed.

Coops.

chuckle....
Sober ? that's the problem then. Sailors invented grog almost the same time they invented sails cause they soon discovered the only way they could stay standing on a pitching deck was to be a bit wobbly themselves to keep in tune with the sea. Opps there goes a turkey, better have another myself so I can catch him and put him into the oven

[JonJo]

Noelex,

I believe your anchor is not a Type Approved model. The Certificate covers models made in a specific factory whose production techniques have been approved. As yours is a NZ model, I believe, the factory was not part of the approval process.

This surely is one of the advantages of the certification process that the factory is assessed and approved, or not.

I'm not suggesting at all that the NZ models are not good and that the factory if it had been assessed would not have been approved - it was simply not part of the equation. Those NZ anchors are getting long in the tooth and I have never heard of a complaint on any of them, apart from you suggesting the gal wears off - but you use yours daily. Has that red bow stood the test of time?

What is odd is that the certificate covers models of 55kg and larger but not the smaller ones that most of us would use. It begs the question, what's wrong with the smaller ones or why has our sector of the market been ignored. All Deltas and CQRs are covered, all Anchor Right models are covered, all Bugels are covered etc. CMP said they were goin to re-visit certification - but it never happened, maybe they are with you and do not think it important

As a slight aside, someone must think certification important as I note they allow some chandlers to claim all anchors are covered.

Jonathan

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by JonJo

someone must think certification important

Three groups of people think certification is important:
Those who profit from the certification industry
(and it *is* an industry),
bureaucrats,
and those who trust bureaucrats.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Noelex,

I believe your anchor is not a Type Approved model. The Certificate covers models made in a specific factory whose production techniques have been approved. As yours is a NZ model, I believe, the factory was not part of the approval process.

This surely is one of the advantages of the certification process that the factory is assessed and approved, or not.

So given the choice of a brand new model that had perhaps sat on shelf- Rocna only.

Would you take a NZ unapproved model, or a Chinese approved model ?

I know neither would fit your bow roller, but this is hypothetical question indicating the importance (to you) of certification.

NZ or Chinese?