Manson Supreme in Weed

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

It does make it difficult to judge comment - if the CQR of 20kg was replaced with, say, a Supreme, or Spade, of 25kg. Of course its better, but why? But maybe my straw poll suggesting people upsize, when they upgrade, is wrong anyway?
)

I agree cruising sailors do nearly always increase the size at the same time as upgrading to a modern anchor.
As you point out some of the improved performance will be attributable to the size increase.
However it is easy to see big differences that are not very related to size. If you dive and look at the depth of set in hard sand a modern anchor is set much better (and with the same reverse power the larger anchor should set less well, not better). The other difference which everyone notices is the instant set of modern anchor. They set with a bang. If your not hanging on there is a risk of falling over as they bite. If you dive the drag marks show they set in a few feet.
It's hard to believe these characterises do not translate to a better anchor with higher reliability and holding power.

There is also a strong take home message when experienced cruisers routinely increase the size of the anchor when buying again. The message is a big anchor is the right anchor.

[foggysail]

Well stated Noelex!

But here is another thought that I have tossed around for anchoring, but not in weeds. Could it be that a smaller anchor with smaller flukes might possibly dig in deeper than a larger anchor under the same conditions and provide better holding? NO, heck no, I am not changing nor suggesting anybody change to a smaller anchor. I am very pleased with what I have.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by foggysail

But here is another thought that I have tossed around for anchoring, but not in weeds. Could it be that a smaller anchor with smaller flukes might possibly dig in deeper than a larger anchor under the same conditions and provide better holding? NO, heck no, I am not changing nor suggesting anybody change to a smaller anchor. I am very pleased with what I have.

I think there are situations where fluke size is more important than weight, especially when anchoring in imperfect substrates. This is why my backup anchor is a different brand (Fortress) than my working anchor (Rocna.)

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

with the same reverse power the larger anchor should set less well, not better).

I'm sceptical of the logic that says you should have a bigger anchor that should set less well, not better

Modern anchors set quickly. They are designed to dive. When they dive they develop enormous holding capacity, so much so that if the yacht is simply moving though 70 degrees they do not move. What happens with that over large anchor not well set? Bring though a sudden wind change, thunderstorm. Which would be better the correctly sized anchor well set or the big anchor not well set (that might carry that, scary, clod of seabed)?

Theoretically my, 16kg, anchor if loaded in one direction will develop a capacity of 2,000kg in a variety of seabeds - why on earth do I need more? I'm, very, willing to be convinced - but the idea that because its bigger it must be better does not curry much favour with my wallet (nor back if I need to lift it by hand).

So show me the rror of my ways.

[Teeto]

We head off tomorrow for a week to Kangaroo Island. Lots of weed to anchor in. So I shall report back after that about the Manson Supreme. We will set the anchor alarm and dive on each set to check (with a shark shield secured to an ankle). Thanks for all the posts so far.

[JonJo]

Teeto,

Have a great and safe trip, if your weather is like ours this morning it should be absolutely gorgeous!

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

I'm sceptical of the logic that says you should have a bigger anchor that should set less well, not better

For a given load a smaller anchor will dive deeper than a larger anchor. For example my 1kg dingy anchor I can get to disappear below the surface with just a hand pull. The same meagre pull on my much larger bower anchor might only see the tip dig in a couple inches. Of course the larger anchor will ultimately hold a much greater force. It will also disappear below the surface, but it takes a pull of several hundred kilograms (or more) to do so.
When setting the anchor with the engine a smaller anchor will actually bury deeper than a larger anchor.

Originally Posted by JonJo

Theoretically my, 16kg, anchor if loaded in one direction will develop a capacity of 2,000kg in a variety of seabeds - why on earth do I need more? I'm, very, willing to be convinced - but the idea that because its bigger it must be better does not curry much favour with my wallet (nor back if I need to lift it by hand).

So show me the rror of my ways.

There is a lot of conflicting data about the loads placed on the anchor, but I would not expect a 16kg anchor, even of modern design, on a 38foot cat to enormously secure in adverse conditions. If you were upwind of me with a forcast of a winter storm. I would probably move.

[Kenomac]

We've had very good luck so far anchoring out much of the time with an over-sized Rocna and Danforth on our last boat and an over-sized CQR on the present boat. Mostly mud and sand bottoms, sometimes kelp.

But like in your situation, we have plans to switch to an over-sized Ultra Anchor as a primary in the near future for it's ability to dig in quickly and set and re-set in grass and weeds. Dragged once with the Rocna in grass in 40 knot winds, and the CQR sometimes takes a couple of tries to get it to set properly in weeds.

[sailorboy1]

My 60 lb Manson Surpreme (which is at least 1 size larger than needed for my boat) has held me more than once in rough conditions anchored in a weedy bottom.

I have 350 feet of chain on the anchor and it also always seems in weed that all that chain brings up a lot of weed.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Teeto

We head off tomorrow for a week to Kangaroo Island. Lots of weed to anchor in. So I shall report back after that about the Manson Supreme. We will set the anchor alarm and dive on each set to check (with a shark shield secured to an ankle). Thanks for all the posts so far.

Teeto,

Why the shark shield when you don't need one on the GBR ?

GO EASY ON THOSE SA crayfish.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by JonJo

So show me the rror of my ways.

Ninety-nine out of a hundred times its a great thing to have an anchor designed to dive. But what happens when the holding ground is 12 inches of sand over bedrock?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Bash

Ninety-nine out of a hundred times its a great thing to have an anchor designed to dive. But what happens when the holding ground is 12 inches of sand over bedrock?

My guess is that you plow a nice line in the sand and wake-up somewhere other than where you went to sleep at.

[Kettlewell]

Ninety-nine out of a hundred times its a great thing to have an anchor designed to dive. But what happens when the holding ground is 12 inches of sand over bedrock?

I've anchored in places where you don't even have the 12 inches of sand. Weight, and pointyness helps--you want something fairly heavy, and with sharp points that will try to wedge into any little indentation in the bottom. A lot of chain helps too.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

Kelp anchors itself to rock on the bottom. It may not have been the kelp causing issues, but rather the fact you were trying to anchor on rock!

I bet I'm not the only one here who didn't know that. Very useful information. Thanks!

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I bet I'm not the only one here who didn't know that. Very useful information. Thanks!

It's not just kelp. Here in the Aegean all weed we have encountered has been growing over elevated areas of rock. It is absolutely critical to hit the sandy patches in between when anchoring!