Manson Supreme in Weed

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by JonJo

I wonder how the 'big is better' school will reply?

I'll reply, I say that you should put a nice small anchor on your boat and travel around for a year or so and get back to us.

The only reason the smaller anchor held better is because it set.

I just don't see how you could argue that a larger anchor once set wouldn't hold better.

[Kettlewell]

Stated simply, if you take two of the same anchor the larger heavier version will have higher ultimate holding power, assuming both are well set. However, getting a large anchor to set well might be a problem in certain bottom types that depend on getting penetration from a very sharp fluke. The smaller anchor has much sharper flukes than a larger anchor of the same design, and therefore may dig in much better in certain bottoms. It is why the flukes on the Fortress anchors are so much sharper than on Danforths of a similar size. Some day, just for kicks, I'm going to try anchoring my 38-foot motorsailor with my 5 lb Danforth dinghy anchor, and I bet it will be fine in normal conditions. I have tried pulling that thing out when dug in on a beach and sometimes you just can't budge it at what would be normal scope.

[JonJo]

Don,

Thanks, you missed some of the earlier debate. It is already suggested that our 16kg anchor, for a 35' cat extended to 38', weighing in at 6t in cruising mode is too small. We have been using our 16kg model for years, 6, I think. We sail Tasmania's west coast. Its fine. In a straight line pull, beach tests, it dives and continues to dive developing 2,000kg of holding capacity - I cannot think why we need more.

However there is a school of thought suggesting we increase anchor makers turnover by all buying bigger anchors - even though when we buy we tend to buy better. So we end up with both bigger and better. I'm of the view that the USL codes have stood the test of time.

Of course bigger anchors develop more holding capacity but you need a larger load to utilise that function. It is difficult to think that our cat will 'develop' an ability to load any anchor beyond 2,000kg. Arguably the smaller anchor will develop a higher capacity more quickly.

The debate really is 'given identical conditions and yacht will the yacht be able to develop a higher holding capacity in the smaller or larger anchor'. The loads will be the same but the smaller anchor will dive deeper (upto a limit). Secondly if the wind direction changes - will the smaller more deeply set anchor pull out more quickly than the more shallowly set bigger anchor. The answers need to take into account different seabeds - but we need assume the chain will stay the same (or we need to buy a new gypsy and maybe a new winch).

I'm of the view, willing to be persuaded, that load each, bigger and smaller, anchor to 1,000kg - they have the same straight line holding capacity. I'm not sure that at 90 degrees the smaller anchor might take more to pull it out.

Best wishes

[Cotemar]

Here is some more fun for you guys

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...oll-95248.html

[Teeto]

So far so good. This ribbon weed has quite dense root systems. The pointy Manson Supreme seems to set fine. Not quite as deeply dug in as mud but a bit hard to tell. Daily wind changes have not unseated us. So onward!!

[cfarrar]

After cruising with CQRs and Bruces, and then upgrading and upsizing to a slightly oversized Rocna, we couldn't be happier. We anchor securely in the same weedy bottoms where we used to drag. Our anchor sets so quickly we have to be careful not to damage the windlass when paying out the rode. Jonjo, it's great you can save money by cruising with a smaller anchor, but why waste energy with the mental gymnastics of convincing others to downsize? I sleep easy knowing that my choice of one, larger, modern anchor is based on personal experience as well as the experience of sailors like Steve Dashew, John Harries, and many others. I'll save money in other ways, like avoiding marinas.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by cfarrar

After cruising with CQRs and Bruces, and then upgrading and upsizing to a slightly oversized Rocna, we couldn't be happier. We anchor securely in the same weedy bottoms where we used to drag. Our anchor sets so quickly we have to be careful not to damage the windlass when paying out the rode. Jonjo, it's great you can save money by cruising with a smaller anchor, but why waste energy with the mental gymnastics of convincing others to downsize? I sleep easy knowing that my choice of one, larger, modern anchor is based on personal experience as well as the experience of sailors like Steve Dashew, John Harries, and many others. I'll save money in other ways, like avoiding marinas.

Actually I don't think of it as saving money, I think of it as not spending it unnecessarily.

[Kettlewell]

Actually I don't think of it as saving money, I think of it as not spending it unnecessarily.

That is a good quote--almost sounds like Benjamin Franklin. I think an additional point is why carry around an extra 30 or 40 pounds on the bow of your boat if you don't have to? Why haul it up from the bottom every time you anchor? Requires a bigger windlass, creates more wear and tear on everything, including your back.

I must say that the so-called "new generation" anchors must be quite good judging from all the kudos they get, but it is still rather funny when someone upgrades to one, and adds 20 or 30 pounds, and then declares the new anchor superior. That is not comparing apples to apples. Imagine how everyone here would scoff if Practical Sailor conducted an anchor test like that? MaineSail, on the other hand, downsized when he went new-gen because of its superior setting ability and holding power. To me that makes a lot of sense.

[foggysail]

JonJo--

The Moderator graciously removed my post which I screwed up posting into the wrong forum for which I thank him.

Now we agree a smaller, lighter anchor will dig faster than a larger anchor. But to help me sleep better .....no worries for Wifey who seems to sleep regardless of the anchoring conditions, I intend to keep following the drummer. My 80# Manson Supreme is going to stay.

Remember, it only takes one bad experience to change your outlook.

Foggy

[motion30]

Originally Posted by foggysail

JonJo--

The Moderator graciously removed my post which I screwed up posting into the wrong forum for which I thank him.

Now we agree a smaller, lighter anchor will dig faster than a larger anchor. But to help me sleep better .....no worries for Wifey who seems to sleep regardless of the anchoring conditions, I intend to keep following the drummer. My 80# Manson Supreme is going to stay.

Remember, it only takes one bad experience to change your outlook.

Foggy

I dont agree with your statment

[foggysail]

Motion30--

Ok, which part did you have trouble with? What the Moderator did, Wifey's sleeping habits, finding a drummer or is it that you prefer more than one bad experience?

[motion30]

I do not agree that a smaller lighter anchor set better. Your wifey's sleeping habits are good by me and .....whats a moderator?
Maybe that was jo jo's statement, I am so confused

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

That is a good quote--almost sounds like Benjamin Franklin. I think an additional point is why carry around an extra 30 or 40 pounds on the bow of your boat if you don't have to? Why haul it up from the bottom every time you anchor? Requires a bigger windlass, creates more wear and tear on everything, including your back.

I must say that the so-called "new generation" anchors must be quite good judging from all the kudos they get, but it is still rather funny when someone upgrades to one, and adds 20 or 30 pounds, and then declares the new anchor superior. That is not comparing apples to apples. Imagine how everyone here would scoff if Practical Sailor conducted an anchor test like that? MaineSail, on the other hand, downsized when he went new-gen because of its superior setting ability and holding power. To me that makes a lot of sense.

Because we only really upgrade our anchors to sleep better. And when doing so the price difference of moving up a size is minor compared to the goal of sleeping better!

When I got my boat it had a geniune SL Delta 44# anchor, a pretty good anchor that probably had been upgraded by the boat's last owner. But I had already have enough bad expeinces and don't sleep that well to start with.

So I got a 60# Manson Surpreme (was going to get a Rocna but CS's trash talk pissed me off to the point that I wasn't going to have him get any of my money in any form). So I upgraded anchor type and went up a size.

The added weight of the anchor is nothing compared to the displacement of my boat and compared to the weigth of the chain is really nothing. The sleeping well goal would greatly out weigh the issue anyway.

I worried about my windlass and figured if I had to upgrade that I would. But my stock windlass has pulled up the anchor as well as 65' of chain as dead lift, even though on paper that exceeds the rating.

I also have pulled up the anchor and chain by hand, but that isn't something this fat out of shape sailor would even want as a regular event! But I can do it which is all that matters and everyone should keep being to do so in mind unless they are willing to cut it free.

[Kettlewell]

I also have pulled up the anchor and chain by hand, but that isn't something this fat out of shape sailor would even want as a regular event! But I can do it which is all that matters and everyone should keep being to do so in mind unless they are willing to cut it free.

This is actually a serious issue once you leave the world of boatyards, marine stores, and overnight shipping. When we were down in the San Blas and Cartagena a lot of people were repairing burnt out or broken electric windlasses and having a tough time getting parts. I would guess that windlasses were the #1 repair item after refrigeration. We met one older couple on a big trawler who were really in trouble because they just couldn't handle manually their 125 lb (I think) main anchor, their windlass was gone, and they were trying to anchor in the San Blas (where some of the anchorages are 40-50 feet deep) with their spare Fortress anchors and such. The nearest possible repairs were over 200 miles away in Panama, and that's where they were headed when we last saw them. A big gang of cruisers went board their boat to manually haul up their main anchor one last time before they headed off on a non-stop (hopefully) overnight trip to Shelter Bay.

[noelex 77]

Anchors basically balance the force of the pull against the resistance of the substrate.
As you go deeper into the soil the resistance generally becomes higher.

A small anchor, with a smaller fluke area, will therefore set deeper than a large anchor of the same type under the same load.


For example if you set your anchor under full reverse a very small anchor would set and dive much deeper than oversized large anchor. However, its important to realise at this stage the small anchor may be close to its limit of maximum holding power.
A larger anchor would set less, under the same force, but as the wind rises and the forces increase the anchor has the potential to set deeper and hold a higher force.