Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[congo]

Cotemar Wrote:

Congo,

You sell anchors.

Is there any time that you would tell a customer, well you know you can get by with this smaller anchor.

If I were to sell anchors, I would want to protect my business and my pride and recommend only the BIB anchor. At that point it’s only a recommendation and nothing out of my pocket.

It’s a win win for the seller and the buyer. It’s a bit more money for the buyer, but they are sleeping well at night.


Rex Wrote:
Our guide charts are broad and there are also many variables to consider, keel yachts, motor yachts, multi hulls the list goes on certainly our charts are not conservative for many reasons.

For instance we had a customer contact us from your part of the world just recently pricing an 88K.G. anchor after viewing our chart, then after speaking with him several times we suggested for his boat a 63 K.G. would see him comfortably anchored, anyway it turned out he is thinking about it as he can Get a 77 K.G. Rocna cheaper, this is one size up than what Rocna recommended, if you want conservative they certainly are, we put in a guideline then speck the anchor on application similar as to the Marine authorities.

Regards REX.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Agree, but it seems that all the anchor makers are in the BIB park.
They all seem to be pretty close on sizing there anchors.

I think you need to re-read Delfin's post 1461 in which some anchor makers are suggesting smaller than others. The BIB camp has been saying - take the recommended size (by the anchor maker) and add 2 sizes. A one size fits all recommendation.

Recommending smaller anchors (for the same sized yacht), with the usual caveat, is good marketing - because your anchors look cheap. An alternative is to use cheap raw materials (not good enough for the job - but do not tell the punter) and pass that saving onto the consumer.

Buyers are gullible - think of the numbers of people on this forum who rushed off to buy a well promoted anchor based on spin, they all need (if they know - another well kept secret) to get new shanks now. Its neither honest nor nice.

But if you can get away with it - guess which anchor maker struggles even though they do the right thing. People like glitzy computer imaging, all your stuff looks really good - but is it accurate, don't know (not suggesting its not accurate) but garbage in garbage out - and it still looks impressive. They are less impressed with hard, grubby work producing holding capacity data, as Fortress have done - that's so very 20th Century - give us spin and we'll buy.

Every anchor sold on spin and no substance is an anchor sale lost to people doing the right thing, Fortress, Spade, Rocna et al

Jonathan

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by congo

Originally Posted by congo
Jon Jo Wrote:
One wonders how the other anchor makers produced their recommended sizings

Rex Wrote:
We have always run with the anchors sizes—specks supplied by the authorities that make the shipping laws N.M.S.C. Lloyds, DNV, so on, in twenty years this has served us well, our insurance companies are touchy on this subject so for alls sake we run with certified regs, we will not make these decisions.
Regards Rex.


Delfin Wrote:

Which is probably why your recommendation for sizing for my boat is nearly 3 times what Rocna's would be. If you follow Rocna's chart, then BIB up 3 sizes is highly recommended. If you follow your chart and buy your product, it probably is going to be like increasing your dock lines from 1" to 3". It might make you feel better, but is unlikely to add to your safety margin by a measurable amount.
__________________

Delfin,
Not sure where you are getting your figures from?, Rocna 33K.G. 20 TON BOAT –45 FT
Excel, 30 K.G. 21 TON BOAT, 55 FT PLUS
Regards Rex.

I got my Rocna recommendation from Fisheries Supply - 36'-66' calls for a 73#. If you take the top end of their range, the maximum would be 52'-80' 121#. One of the problems with Rocna and Manson is that they don't take into account displacement. Your site does, and based on your table, a 60 ton boat would need an 105 kg, which seems a bit big to me, so I pretended her tanks were empty and would have chosen an 88 kg. You wouldn't recommend a 30kg anchor for my vessel would you? On the Ultra site, they recommend (correctly, I think) to select the largest size based on displacement or length, which for them is the 80 kg I have.

All this illustrates the point that the 'bigger' in BIB depends on how the manufacturer sizes their anchors for a given vessel. If they use just length like Manson for their Supreme, then increasing by 5 sizes gets you to what Ultra recommends, and what based on experience is about the right size for Delfin. If I use your chart and go by length, I need to go up 6 sizes. If by weight, down one size to get to what I have. So to me the whole conversation about 'bigger is better' is meaningless unless someone provides a reference point for 'bigger than what'?

Which by the way, is the wrong response to give your wife when she asks "do these pants make my butt look big?"

[congo]

Delfin Wrote:
I pretended her tanks were empty and would have chosen an 88 kg. You wouldn't recommend a 30kg anchor for my vessel would you? On the Ultra site, they recommend (correctly, I think) to select the largest size based on displacement or length, which for them is the 80 kg I have.

Rex Wrote:

You are correct Delfin, an 88 K.G. is exactly what I would have specked, I think the phenomenon BIB largely lies within the minds of the boaters say from 30 ft and up to around 30 ton, this is our experience, the customers with boats of these sizes request larger anchors far out way the request to upsize on the bigger boats.

Regards Rex.

[Delfin]

Regardless of your view on their product, I have yet to see a better selection guide than that prepared by Ultra. It seems very ethical because if anyone has a commercial interest in convincing people to buy their very expensive product by recommending a smaller size, it would be them. But that isn't what their selection algorithm yields for a recommendation. I used the sailboat category because I have masts, a crow's nest, and more windage than the typical sailboat. Using their tool, I need an 80 kg, which is what I had for 5 years before buying an Ultra and it always seemed the right size for the boat. If one has a smaller vessel, going up one size may make sense using their chart, or two sizes if using many other manufacturers charts. But all in all, this seems like a good resource whatever your preference for design is.

[Jimbo485]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Congo, You sell anchors. Is there any time that you would tell a customer, well you know you can get by with this smaller anchor.

That is exactly what Rex told me during a phone conversation.

"You don't need one that big, mate! Where are you going sailing? Antarctica?"

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by downunder

Very bold and sweeping statement in light of some of the issues coming to light with roll bar anchors, Evans experience in very testing conditions and that there are other t least equal and new designs available.

I can be very slow at times;

briefly:

'In light of what issues'?

Jonathan

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Jimbo485

That is exactly what Rex told me during a phone conversation.

"You don't need one that big, mate! Where are you going sailing? Antarctica?"

That describes my encounter with Anchor Right when I was considering an Excel bigger than I needed. In fact, that seems to be pretty much universal opinion, except from a small number who have decided that he is arrogant and self promoting and aren't afraid of saying so. Come to think of it, those that seem to express that sentiment come across themselves as just a titch self-inflated/promoting, so perhaps we just have a case where a straightforward and knowledgeable manufacturer isn't interested in stoking egos for the sake of making a sale. Beats me, but I do appreciate his input as someone who makes anchors and has thought more deeply on the subject than I ever will, or would want to.

[sabray]

Relying back on old stories I recall hal Roth went aground in the straights because the ground was foul with weed. Not sure what anchor he had at that time. Guess it was not a way big hook. He probably took the best that met all his needs. I remember they sailed out of anchorages that were getting beyond what was comfortable.
Hal also relates a story where they held on but were grateful that they had the best available shackle. Though bent it held? At some point you just exceed what is the lesser link. Back to what is the week point in your system. Snubber chain shackle....etc. I want a second choice batch of gear. Contrary to the one big better idea.

[bfloyd4445]

Originally Posted by motion30

One thing I learned here is..There is no one perfect anchor, but I do believe a big new gen anchor is . better then what we had in the past

the old Danforth has been around along time and it is still a top performer one I've found that works most places. Its big advantage I see is in the movable arm that attaches to the anchor ride allowing for the flukes to bite even with a short rode. Once set this feature also allows the rode to change angles without pulling the flukes out. Why cant a plow type anchor incorporate this same feature

[downunder]

Originally Posted by JonJo

I can be very slow at times;

briefly:

'In light of what issues'?

Jonathan

Evans detailed his issues with his Rocna and I would hope to cruise Patagonia in the future.

Certainly Nolex’s octopus thread photo slows a poorly set anchor. Pure weight doing the job in the winds in that situation.

Clogging of the smaller roll bar anchors seems well accepted in several bottom types, mud and weed.

There seems to be general concencus that roll bars restrict deep diving/burying of anchors.

There were a number of other posts I can’t quickly find. Your post
JonJo Quote: An interesting facet of concave anchors is that owners make lifting all that seabed into an asset (and defend the characteristic to the death). The fact that the fluke is clogged would suggest to me the anchor has stopped working and the device at the end of the chain is simply 'dead weight'. Of course the owners see it as proof the anchor has set (though how an anchor with a clogged fluke can take an increase of 10 knots of wind is never explained).

No wonder deck washes are essential.

It has been suggested that the Mantus wide roll bar was devised to ensure this clogging did not happen,

Testing with the Mantus does show that clogging is not the issue it is with those concave anchors with smaller (narrower) roll bars and uplifted heels causing compression and hence blockage. Mantus in taking that route must have sacrificed some potential sales as the large hoop will not fit on many vessels (and is not the most attractive feature) - so they must have been strongly motivated away from 'fluke clogging' at the expense of beauty and fitting ability.

So we have one concave roll bar anchor where clogging is an asset and another concave roll bar anchor specifically designed that clogging cannot occur.

Takes all sorts, I suppose.

Jonathan

QUOTE
Cheers

[JonJo]

Downunder,

Thanks.

I thought I had missed something and you were simply re-confirming you have a good memory

The unusual aspect of Evans experience is that he is one of the few to have ever gone back to an 'older' design. Though I have heard a number of times that bigger, usually quoted is 50kg +, Bruce anchors 'really' work and its the smaller models that are not quite so good (because the toe is too blunt for harder substrates). The Boss looks as if it has addressed the 'blunt toe' issue though there are doubts about shank thickness.

Jonathan

[Richard_W]

Of course the owners see it as proof the anchor has set (though how an anchor with a clogged fluke can take an increase of 10 knots of wind is never explained).

I can explain that ... sort of ... the anchor picks up more "stuff" as it drags until it settles.

Not saying that this works nor is a predictable way to anchor ...



The same 22 lb Lewmar DELTA anchor pictured a page or two ago, no roll bar.

Believe it or not but it worked that night, and it was a windy night. I've got two GPS anchor dragging alarms before it settled for good. Must have been a 50 lb dead man anchor when it settled.

[JonJo]

This appeared on another forum and was a slight thread drift:

The original post:

Quote:
I agree debris can cause an anchor not to set. With a new generation anchor the nice thing is that this is the most common reason for it not to set the first time.
If it has landed on debris, or not set for some other reason it is obvious because it will not hold when reverse is applied.


The reply:

quote

Our Rocna dragged at Alinda in fierce gusting winds. The odd thing was that we had been there for 12 hours before it decided to let go. When the anchor was recovered we found a massive ball of monofilament nylon fishing net wrapped around it, so much that we had a struggle to press it into a full sized bin bag.

unquote


I am not suggesting the problem is unique to Rocna, not roll bar anchors - as the previous post by Richard suggests that it will/can happen to any anchor. But the idea that setting hard will uncover a 'poorly' set anchor looks questionable. Still reasonable justification to set that anchor alarm, reasonable justification not to rely on one overly large anchor when conditions look questionable

Jonathan

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by sabray

Relying back on old stories I recall hal Roth went aground in the straights because the ground was foul with weed. Not sure what anchor he had at that time.

Its some considerable time since I read the book but as I recall they were anchored in gravel on a lee shore somewhere around Islotes Otter.. see pic. Somewhere you would not anchor in a purple fit these days.

I drank the kool aid and replaced my CQR with an NZ Rocna about 5 years ago. Sofa so good... but in Chilean Patagonia 95% of anchoring is with lines ashore and the wind coming over your stern so a static load is what you are dealing with... if your anchor can cut through the kelp you are fine .

That said I once had Smith senior aboard in the Falklands.. I anchored and wasn't happy with my possy... weighed anchor and shifted ... anchor was full of sticky mud, Smith senior very insistent that all mud had to be cleared off anchor or it wouldn't re-set.

So.... if you have a serious windshift and your Rocna breaks out it may not reset.... if it doesn't break out then you risk bending the shank.

Re picking up weed.... any anchor will pick up kelp if you are in a 'kelpie' anchorage....