Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by Not Sure

No, as another poster pointed out way back in the first page, the reason that your Rocna doesn't drag is because the recommended size is substantially larger than it's predecessor, and not because its 'better' per se (its a plow anchor with a circular bar welded on top, and regular old plow anchors already have notoriously good holding power). So what you've essentially purchased is a heavy plow anchor. Put a nice length of heavy chain on it and no wonder its 'never failed'. Neither would a regular plow anchor that size and with that amount of chain attached.

You're clearly have no experience with a Rocna thus the confusion?


My set up:

Fact: I used a 35 pound CQR for many years on a 12,000 pound 36 foot sloop. Despite being well set, and always with proper scope, I dragged it numerous times and had locations where it would just not set at all, the same locations the Rocna now sets at within inches. Did it set and hold? Yes. Did it set reliably, and consistently, when compared to my Rocna? No, unfortunately not, or I'd still be using it..

Fact: I now use a 33 pound Rocna (2 pounds lighter than my CQR) on a 17,000 36 foot sloop. 5000 pounds more boat, 2 pounds lighter in anchor. Heavier? Bigger? I use the same chain and rode as I have with the Bruce, CQR, Spade and others I own, and I have never dragged the Rocna, not even once. So far it has always set on the first try and has re-set to wind and tide at 100% as well, in my home waters of the North East where we see lots of wind and tide swings.

Fact: My Rocna is not heavier/bigger than my CQR!

Not bigger/heavier, and in fact 2 pounds lighter, yet it has performed consistently better. Just lucky I guess? 170+ times..?

The Rocna, Manson, Spade and others with a concave shape (concave angled or curved into to the mud) are not "plow anchors" they are concave not convex (convex pointing up and away from the mud) in shape like a plow is. Delta & CQR are plows by shape. Spade, Rocna & Manson are more shovel or "spade" shaped not plow shaped.

There is no best anchor but having owned a CQR, Bruce, Fortress, Delta, Spade, Manson Supreme, Supermax and a Rocna I'll take my Manson or Rocna any day of the week, over the others, which just sit in the barn these days.

There are differences despite what some want to believe. If someone stole all my new gen anchors I'd go back to my genuine Bruce but I won't go back to my CQR's anytime soon...

Different strokes for different folks..

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by Not Sure

Clearly the indication in these two tests is that dollar for dollar and pound for pound, a generic spade or plow anchor is the best value for the money.

The "generic" Spade in that test is not a "generic". It was the real McCoy a.... Spade. Spade's today cost significantly more than do a Manson Supreme or a Rocna does..

I happen to own both the aluminum Spade and the steel Spade and guess what the 35 pound version in steel sets significantly better despite all other dimensions being exactly identical..

[GMac]

Sorry Not Sure but you have said 2 things which basically put the rest of your argument into the trash bin.

Originally Posted by Not Sure

The 'Rocna', for example, is simply a variation of a plow anchor (a plow anchor with a half-circle bar attached to the top), as is the 'Manson Supreme' (a plow anchor with the middle of the plow blade removed). These examples (of rebadged old designs) are not anomalies either.

If you put a plow next to a Rocna or Supreme and close 1 and 3/4 of your eyes you will still be able to see they are seriously different. Open both eye and you'll be surprised by the difference. Yes they are often referred too as plows but quite incorrectly.

And 2 was picked up by Maine Sail above. The 'Spade' is not generic, it is the real name of a real anchor. Actually the one that started the 'new generation', con-caved shape which has since be copied by Rocna, Supreme and a few others.

[GMac]

Right to dive off and back a little to the chatting about Sarcas. I had a interesting chat with Mr Sarca, Rex, today. Still a rampantly passionate man about his products, almost bordering on freaky but I just put that part down to him being an Aussie

We were talking about the T.A.T.S testing machine, which I have taken the odd swipe at, mostly in an unfavourable manner. It's not like I don't like the design and engineering just the way it tests at long scopes which I don't think is very realistic.

This is where it gets interesting - neither does Rex BUT, and it is a big but in this case, there is more to it than meets the eye. Let me explain, it is quite interesting.

The Australians have (Oh crap I hope I get this right) 6 States. Until very recently all the States had differing Rules and Regs from the one next door, to a point. Just recently they decided to pull all under one National body whose the name escapes me at the moment. Sounds like a good idea.

This new body has been tasked with standardised the country and other smart things like that. It is also tasked with checking out and Certifying assorted marine gear, one being anchors. As they have had a few issues this body wants to have all anchors sold there up to a certain standard. As I understand it they have chatted with Lloyds and will be following very similar rules and procedures, again a smart move.

Now under the new rules they have, when testing anchors they want to see the maximum load and anchor will hold given ideal situations. And when testing anchors for things like this they want a specific and very repeatable process so all anchors can be judged equally. Again a smart move, almost too smart for Aussies but that's a whole different story of wind-up

So Rex, a very much mad scientist or in this case mad engineer type, built the TATS machine. With this machine they can very easily replicate the identical test process for any anchor. Being a mad scientist isn't a bad thing, it's actually good and the world needs more of them.

Now the long scope part. As the Authorities want to see the max possible numbers it means more scope is better than less, as we all know. Hence that is why they use it as they do.

So while I still don't think it replicates real life anchoring well, I must apologise to everyone, especially Rex and the Anchor-Righters, (and us Kiwis don't do that lightly when Aussies are involved) for taking a slightly uninformed swipe at said TATS machine. That is not it's primary role in life.

So there you go, that is why it appears the TATS machine is doing stuff many of us don't think is that real life realistic. It is more to satisfy bureaucrats and us all down the line a bit I suppose, rather than emulate you sitting off some nice tropical atoll.

In other news - A cat was caught up a tree..... opps sorry the Teleprompter when bad

Sarca or more correctly Anchor-Right Ltd, maker of the Sarca and Excel anchors and a couple of other things, has recently got into the UK market and is doing very well.

Oh how's this for nasty, yet for a good cause. They are getting all the anchors Certified up which includes some destruction testing. How would you like to be the poor (and you'll see why I said poor shortly) dude who has to build, to the standard quality and finish you would have when sending out to the shops/boats a 90kg (200lbs odd) solid stainless steel Excel anchor and then stand there while someone tears it to pieces Rex just had to do that. I feel the pain of both him and his wallet, hence the word poor. About the only good news there was it flew through well above the required numbers. Going sad again, he has to do that with a large pile to get Certified, OUCH.

Good news again, watch this space or their website. I understand they will have some very interesting and good news just after Xmas. I won't spill just yet but it's all good for AR, Rex and the punters who use their products.

We also had a chat about 'marketing on websites'. Understandable Rex isn't the biggest fan of me when I pick on things but after the chat he understands why and mostly agrees that being a bit more careful in how some things are written will only be of benefit to the punters. Something he is looking into, good on him. He also realises I'm not picking on them only and it is a industry wide binge I'm on.

We then got deep into the technicals of anchors, pros and cons of the various designs and so on, which I won't bore you with even if CF had enough bandwidth to fit it all in.

Oh and my Excel is close at hand so looking forward to having a play with it. Hopefully we won't break Rex's heart by breaking it. I get the feeling he is so passionate about his gear he actually gives names to each and every anchor. That must be a good thing as it means he's highly quality concious even if it could be regarded as a tad spooky

All in all an interesting chat indeed.

What's more a very interesting move by the Australian authorities. Be interesting to see if that kicks off some worldwide trend to follow their lead. I'd expect NZ to follow fast if they deem it appropriate, which will raise a few heckles I'm sure. Then again if your product is up to speed you shouldn't have a worry. A few will be saving some export dollars currently heading eastward, that is for sure and not a bad thing for us all.

[Wayward Wind]

Gmac

Thanks for the interesting post. I was originally going to buy the Super Sarca, then was attracted to the Sarca Excel because it is claimed to have better holding power. Then I realise that I may occasionally anchor in areas where there may be rocks. The original Sarca, now the super Sarca, stands for Sand And Rock Combination Anchor, with its reset trip where you slide the D shackle along the shank to pull the anchor up. I currently use a Lewmar Delta. What are your thoughts?

JohnC

[bayview]

Originally Posted by GMac

Right to dive off and back a little to the chatting about Sarcas. I had a interesting chat with Mr Sarca, Rex, today. Still a rampantly passionate man about his products, almost bordering on freaky but I just put that part down to him being an Aussie

We were talking about the T.A.T.S testing machine, which I have taken the odd swipe at, mostly in an unfavourable manner. It's not like I don't like the design and engineering just the way it tests at long scopes which I don't think is very realistic.

This is where it gets interesting - neither does Rex BUT, and it is a big but in this case, there is more to it than meets the eye. Let me explain, it is quite interesting.

The Australians have (Oh crap I hope I get this right) 6 States. Until very recently all the States had differing Rules and Regs from the one next door, to a point. Just recently they decided to pull all under one National body whose the name escapes me at the moment. Sounds like a good idea.

This new body has been tasked with standardised the country and other smart things like that. It is also tasked with checking out and Certifying assorted marine gear, one being anchors. As they have had a few issues this body wants to have all anchors sold there up to a certain standard. As I understand it they have chatted with Lloyds and will be following very similar rules and procedures, again a smart move.

Now under the new rules they have, when testing anchors they want to see the maximum load and anchor will hold given ideal situations. And when testing anchors for things like this they want a specific and very repeatable process so all anchors can be judged equally. Again a smart move, almost too smart for Aussies but that's a whole different story of wind-up

So Rex, a very much mad scientist or in this case mad engineer type, built the TATS machine. With this machine they can very easily replicate the identical test process for any anchor. Being a mad scientist isn't a bad thing, it's actually good and the world needs more of them.

Now the long scope part. As the Authorities want to see the max possible numbers it means more scope is better than less, as we all know. Hence that is why they use it as they do.

So while I still don't think it replicates real life anchoring well, I must apologise to everyone, especially Rex and the Anchor-Righters, (and us Kiwis don't do that lightly when Aussies are involved) for taking a slightly uninformed swipe at said TATS machine. That is not it's primary role in life.

So there you go, that is why it appears the TATS machine is doing stuff many of us don't think is that real life realistic. It is more to satisfy bureaucrats and us all down the line a bit I suppose, rather than emulate you sitting off some nice tropical atoll.

In other news - A cat was caught up a tree..... opps sorry the Teleprompter when bad

Sarca or more correctly Anchor-Right Ltd, maker of the Sarca and Excel anchors and a couple of other things, has recently got into the UK market and is doing very well.

Oh how's this for nasty, yet for a good cause. They are getting all the anchors Certified up which includes some destruction testing. How would you like to be the poor (and you'll see why I said poor shortly) dude who has to build, to the standard quality and finish you would have when sending out to the shops/boats a 90kg (200lbs odd) solid stainless steel Excel anchor and then stand there while someone tears it to pieces Rex just had to do that. I feel the pain of both him and his wallet, hence the word poor. About the only good news there was it flew through well above the required numbers. Going sad again, he has to do that with a large pile to get Certified, OUCH.

Good news again, watch this space or their website. I understand they will have some very interesting and good news just after Xmas. I won't spill just yet but it's all good for AR, Rex and the punters who use their products.

We also had a chat about 'marketing on websites'. Understandable Rex isn't the biggest fan of me when I pick on things but after the chat he understands why and mostly agrees that being a bit more careful in how some things are written will only be of benefit to the punters. Something he is looking into, good on him. He also realises I'm not picking on them only and it is a industry wide binge I'm on.

We then got deep into the technicals of anchors, pros and cons of the various designs and so on, which I won't bore you with even if CF had enough bandwidth to fit it all in.

Oh and my Excel is close at hand so looking forward to having a play with it. Hopefully we won't break Rex's heart by breaking it. I get the feeling he is so passionate about his gear he actually gives names to each and every anchor. That must be a good thing as it means he's highly quality concious even if it could be regarded as a tad spooky

All in all an interesting chat indeed.

What's more a very interesting move by the Australian authorities. Be interesting to see if that kicks off some worldwide trend to follow their lead. I'd expect NZ to follow fast if they deem it appropriate, which will raise a few heckles I'm sure. Then again if your product is up to speed you shouldn't have a worry. A few will be saving some export dollars currently heading eastward, that is for sure and not a bad thing for us all.

About the only part of this post that rings true is the bit about 6 states. There is also 2 territories. To the best of my Knowledge none of them have identical rules and regs.

To consider a holding power test as the definitive answer to which is the best anchor without knowing the bottom or the conditions in which it will be used is just plain dangerous and ill informed. The day Tiger Woods plays a round of golf with just one club is the day I'll put to sea with just one style of anchor.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by bayview

About the only part of this post that rings true is the bit about 6 states. There is also 2 territories. .

Pedantic I know - but incorrect. 2 large mainland territories, 1 small mainland, plenty of others offshore and of course the antarctic territories.

Sorry for the interruption - back to the interesting discussions on anchors, and I mean that sincerely, it is really interesting.

And hi to catty

[lancelot9898]

Speaking of testing results, I'ld like to see wind shifts factored into the testing. That to me would be a better measurement of an anchor's performance rather than just shear holding on a straight pull. I still think a lot of my 35 lb CQR which held my boat (a 37 ft Tayanna) in a Cat 1 hurricane, however there has been times where I could not get it set in soft mud. I've subsequently switched to the 45 lb Manson Supreme, but it hasn't been fully tested in hurricane conditions....only a full gale so far with good results.

[Therapy]

GMac,

Thanks again for another informative post and the honesty.

[GMac]

6 States, ya hoo I guessed right. But 2, maybe more, Territories, bugger! The dodgy Aussies still claiming as theirs that 'state or territory' that has a rugby team who can actually play the game well? FYI - Until not that long ago NZ was part of Aussie, or at least the Aussies thought so even if 4 mil kiwis didn't. A quirk in their law for some historical reason.

WW - the sliding shank ability on the Sarca have saved many an anchor from spending the rest of there life as play things for fish. Doesn't mean it'll come back everytime but it certainly is a good feature. If you know you will be anchoring in reef it's well worth a look. The Excel is very sexy but costs more I would suggest, it is pure SS bow bling. Pick your primary anchor to suit the bottom type you will be in most of the time.

Bayview - Google N.M.S.C or the 'National Marine Safety Committee'.
Most tests reference the bottom type, just like this for example http://www.anchorright.com.au/certif...rTestChart.pdf
As part of the process I described above the anchor dudes are required to take seabed samples and surveyed to accurately get to grips with exactly what the anchors are being deployed in. The whole process is very and surprisingly detailed.

May I quickly add here - while Rex built the TATS machine when it is being used for this Certification he or any of the Anchor-Right team don't operate it. It is used by a independent operator without a vested interest in selling anchors. The AR team would be watching I'm sure but they don't do the testing as you can see in the above referenced link.

Don't forget that this Certification process tries to find the best possible loads hence the long scopes. Also why it is being done in around 1.5mts (5-6ft) of water so the gurus can watch exactly what the anchor is doing. Just watching a anchor during the setting phase can be very interesting and on occasions show potential flaws.

As far as I know there is only one anchor outfit who claims theirs is the best ever, do everything, no question. And everyone knows they are well wrong. The rest are more realistic.

There is no one 'the bestest ever' anchor. One day maybe but today, nope. Actually there is one that is close to perfect, it's called 'a mooring' but not that easy to carry if you are cruising

Lance - that wind/tidal shift is a hard test to do. It takes a long time to get a set of reasonable number and time isn't that easy to find for many these days. There is also the wave action effect that I'd like to see looked at closer. To be fair to a anchor you would want to go set it then let it sit for a hour or 2 to let the ground liqudification to settle then wait for the wind/tide to change and see what happens. Then you would need to do that quite a few times in many assorted bottoms to get a nice set of numbers. Easy a few weeks worth if you wanted to do it real justice I would think.

There is a reasonable amount of anecdotal evidence that most anchors handle tide and wind changes pretty well, certainly a lot better than the not so anecdotal and commonly seen evidence of 'loose unit' anchor operators

But there is a test running as I write that is looking more into the variables like, tidal/wind changes, wave action, wind gusts and those sorts of things. This test programme has an expect year to run to get a good set of real life numbers. Very very interesting it is as the results will be. It's not so much looking at specific anchors rather than the interactions between all the system components in relation to the vast array of variables. There will be a small amount of data that will anchor specific I would think.

Supremes have gone through hurricanes well. I think there is a report or 2 on the Manson website from happy supreme owning hurricane survivors.

[cat man do]

Thats a bit of an about face there GMac

Just to clear something else, up these anchors also seem to be getting used on some pretty hefty boats.







And finally, one of my fav's Sher Khan (If I water mine will it grow up into one of these?)

[FrankZ]

Originally Posted by cat man do

And finally, one of my fav's Sher Khan (If I water mine will it grow up into one of these?)

Probably not but you could always take this one for a spin for a week or two to find out how to treat a rich girl like her.

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by GMac

Supremes have gone through hurricanes well. I think there is a report or 2 on the Manson website from happy supreme owning hurricane survivors.

I think any of these "New" breed of anchors will be far superior than any anchor that I have previously used.

I seem to remember seeing a picture (on here I think) of a supreme or rocna that had a massive lump of the seabed in its bucket after it had broken out of the bottom.

If, for some ungodly reason a supreme or rocna was to break free during a storm, would this make re setting more difficult do you think?

I seem to remember the sarca had something about blades shape (opposite to others) and slots that supposedly help prevent mud being trapped in the bucket, making resetting easier and also not tearing at the sea floor so much leaving a reasonably intact habitat for my little fishy friends to live in.

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by FrankZ

Probably not but you could always take this one for a spin for a week or two to find out how to treat a rich girl like her.

$42 large for the week I'd be wanting lots of very special things that should not be talked about here

[GMac]

Just trying to be fair and reasonable once new info comes to hand Cat....... even to a Aussie I did wonder a while back why they had such a machine which could be shot down so easily in relation to real life but now we all know it becomes crystal clear and a good idea. Who would have guessed a bunch of bureaucrats could actually come up with a good idea for a change? You must admit it is a bit out of left field as they say (and to this day I still wonder why they say that)

Still quite fascinated with what's going on in Aussie with that Certification. Big move indeed but once it works through I think a good one. It will add cost to your anchor though. Rex mentioned a few numbers cost wise and they were not small, far from it. But as 90% of people buy anchors usually based on very unsound thinking, the extra cost will make them all a bit safer, even if they don't know it.

Balling in some bottom types is not uncommon. It's not so much the con-caved shape as it is the roll bars. You'll find the Supreme and Sarca, (the Spade and Raya even less again) which still suffering it to a point don't do it as much as the Rocna due to the kick-up at the back of the foot. It's only in 'sticky' type bottoms like clay, some muds and the like. Sand, gravel and so on it doesn't appear to be any issue.

Yes the Sarca isn't con-caved but does have that smaller diameter rollbar which means it can suffer the same issue a little.

Then again the Bruce was know to hook up rocks a bit as well.