Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

But how about the technique used by Chuck Hawley & crew during the Sail Magazine /West Marine hard bottom anchor tests..? Was it flawed? Can the CQR actually set consistently well in a hard bottom if "proper technique" is used?

If I am not mistaken it is a full five sizes bigger than the original Bruce recommendation for a 47 foot 30k displacement vessel.

(1) I know Chuck. He does the best unbiased job he can with his testing. But Yes, I would say the setting method in that test was flawed. They pretty much ripped the anchors along the bottom, while a cruiser knows that in some bottoms you sometimes have to be a little gentle. We actually know some people who had trouble understanding these test results and went back to the exact same area and got CQR's to set and hold in that bottom. But I understand the dilemma for Chuck - he wants to treat all the anchors exactly the same, BUT they actually want somewhat different technique for best performance.

(2) Yes, you are mistaken. At the time when we built Hawk, a 30kg bruce was the recommended size and one size up was 50kg (there was no 40kg available) so we had (and have a 50kg). Also, please remember we sailed RTW on a 37'er previously using 20kg anchors (bruce, cqr and danforth) so we have plenty of experience with more typical anchor sizes.

Also several other boats have similar experiences to ours with 'normal' size next gen anchors. You may have read some stuff by Andy O'Grady, who tried to go down a size switching from a CQR to a supreme and had much less good performance.

(3) In Chile we had Ray, Supreme and ROCNA on board and found three situations where the 'next gen' anchors did not do so well. (a) In very heavy kelp in S Georgia, the roll bars seemed to catch on the kelp and not allow the anchors to set. (b) In bumpy/lumpy rock bottoms in Chile the next gen anchors would skate and not set (while the ray would). (c) in shore scope situations the next gen anchors would drag while the Ray set. You can see our write up and pictures on some of this at http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/Main...hor%20test.pdf

I have no agenda here, other than to say that in our own experience, the Next Gen anchors don't seem to be as magically better as the marketing claims. I hate to see people throwing away perfectly good anchors thinking the 'next gen' performance is going to be vastly better when what they really need is a bit better technique.

[Talbot]

I dont see that the length of the shaft has anything to do with an ability for the tip to pull out or not, nor do I see the length of the tip to make any difference. It is all a matter of geometry. What will make a difference is the angle of the flukes to the shaft, some of the fortress anchors can be set up with a 44deg angle, versus the more normal 30 ish deg. Thus at the 44 deg angle is less likely to accidently pull out at short scope.

For those marginal positions the size of the flukes will help to reduce the incidence of accidental break out, as would an anchor skellet.

Thus IMHO a new generation anchor with larger flukes will perform marginally better in short scope, and a fortress set at 44 deg, considerably better.

The answer of course is more than somewhat obvious, why were you anchoring with short scope in the first place? The same situation could occur if using a very short length of chain, as chain weight (or a skellet, will significantly assist in keeping the angle of pull at the shank down to the design angle.

It also does not seem to me to make a lot of sense to complain to the manufacturer, that his design has not been used in tests, when that is a fault primarily of the magazines doing the tests.

[YOGAO]

Evans,

While I agree with much of what you have posted and recognize your experience is vastly in excess of mine, I would point out this bit of observation. My agreement includes the fact that new gen anchors are not perfect for every bottom type, nice to hear about your experience with the Ray.

We have been on boats deploying CQRs and other old gen anchors where the owner repeats your 'bit better technique' advice and then goes on to explain their technique that routinely works for them. We think that is great, but also smile a bit when the 'technique' is significantly different than the last cruiser we spoke with. Sometimes it is diametrically opposed - and yet it works for them if we can believe the verbal reports of the owners.

Now it could be that we are just not very good at developing 'technique' but our overall experience with new gen v. old gen is striking.

With new gen, we drop the hook (Rocna), pay out the appropriate amount of chain and then DASH to engage the chain brake, because the anchor is going to set. There is NO running of the engine at 'x' rpm for 'y' period of time, NO backing down at 'this' scope to set the hook, then adjusting to 'that' scope for overnight, etc. We anchor with confidence and the concern appropriate for the conditions.

With old gen, we rarely had a 'drop it and set in' experience. We routinely spent mostly sleepless nights, or found ourselves rudely awakened when we on our way to 'rafting' with a neighbor at 3AM, or by the anchor alarm. Ouch! Anchoring in places with high currents/tidal changes required Bahamian mooring, something we have left behind with the new gen.

All, we have now gone far adrift from the OP's question of anchoring in the Chesapeake...

Fair Winds,
Mike

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

(2) Yes, you are mistaken. At the time when we built Hawk, a 30kg bruce was the recommended size and one size up was 50kg (there was no 40kg available) so we had (and have a 50kg). Also, please remember we sailed RTW on a 37'er previously using 20kg anchors (bruce, cqr and danforth) so we have plenty of experience with more typical anchor sizes.

Sorry, I was using a chart published in Sail Magazine (Chart Link) which I thought were Bruce's original recommendations.

If you look at the chart published in Sail is shows a 44 pound Bruce for a 46-50 footer to 30k displacement. I then went to Manson's site where they show five sizes between 44 pounds and 112 pounds. Manson sells; 45, 56, 67, 78, 90 & 112 pound Ray anchors. You are right that Bruce only ever made 44, 66 & 110 pound anchors. If you use Manson's sizing they call for a 56 pound anchor for a 40-50 footer which is 10 pounds more than the Bruce recommendation, but there are still five sizes in the Ray line between the 56 and 112 (56-1, 67-2, 78-3, 90-4 & 112-5)..

In short I used Bruce's original sizing recommendation of 44 pounds then Manson's size range seeing as you currently have a Ray.. Hope that explains how I came up with the five sizes bigger. Hell I'm confused, I can see how you were....

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I have no agenda here, other than to say that in our own experience, the Next Gen anchors don't seem to be as magically better as the marketing claims. I hate to see people throwing away perfectly good anchors thinking the 'next gen' performance is going to be vastly better when what they really need is a bit better technique.

I spent a solid 15 years using a CQR and could almost always get out of it, but it was work, and often took four or more attempts in tough bottoms. As one who anchors solo more often than not that is a royal PITA.

I tried every technique known to man with my CQR's and yet they still were tough or even refused to set in certain bottoms. Over the years I tried slow, fast, wait a while, all chain, heavier chain, kellets, 7:1, 10:1, 4:1 etc. etc. on and on. Technique goes along way but the Bruce, Rocna, Spade and Manson will almost always out set a CQR, in my experience. I liked my Bruce but did not feel comfortable with the recommended size for my vessel and did not want to be lifting a significantly larger anchor.

The new gen anchors are not a panacea but both my Rocna and Manson have performed far better than any other anchor I own. If you own an over sized Bruce or even a Delta then going new gen may not be necessary but IMHO the Manson Supreme, Rocna & Spade slam the pants of both of the CQR's I own and used for many, many years.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

slam the pants of both of the CQR's I own and used for many, many years.

Well lets agree then! And with Yogao as well!

I think I said in my first post on this thread that the CQR was probably the worst of the 'old gen' anchors. It's amazing how well it in fact works, and just as a side note, many of the charter boats down in beagle/antarctic use them, and the professional captain of the boat I am refitting just specified one . . . but I would not buy one for my own boat.

The 'next gen' anchors are good anchors. But I would suggest (IMHO) not good enough to feel comfortable about going done a size . . . which was the essence of the OP question.

To again get back to the OP, setting is not much of a problem in the Chesapeake and something with lots of surface area per lb is probably the answer. That makes it a danforth type or a Supreme (no reason to pay the ROCNA price premium).

[estarzinger]

One additional thought - roll bars - The one thing I don't like is that they block my second anchor roller. I have the conventional two roller bow arrangement. With a 'normal' anchor (eg one without roll bar) in one roller I can pick up a mooring over the second roller or take a bow dock line out. With either the ROCNA or Supreme the roll bar blocks the second roller and I have to drop the anchor over the bow and leave it swinging to use the second roller. Honestly we don't pick up moorings very often, but if you do I would give this a close look.

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

One additional thought - roll bars - The one thing I don't like is that they block my second anchor roller. I have the conventional two roller bow arrangement. With a 'normal' anchor (eg one without roll bar) in one roller I can pick up a mooring over the second roller or take a bow dock line out. With either the ROCNA or Supreme the roll bar blocks the second roller and I have to drop the anchor over the bow and leave it swinging to use the second roller. Honestly we don't pick up moorings very often, but if you do I would give this a close look.

Yup the hoop can be a problem on some bow arrangements so that needs to be weighed in the pros & cons part of any decision to buy new ground tackle... No anchor is the be-all, end-all.........yet. Hopefully someone makes one someday..

[YOGAO]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

Yup the hoop can be a problem on some bow arrangements so that needs to be weighed in the pros & cons part of any decision to buy new ground tackle... No anchor is the be-all, end-all.........yet. Hopefully someone makes one someday..

...a wind/solar powered tractor beam? [GROAN] [/GROAN]

Evans, thanks for bringing this back to the OP.

Fair Winds,
Mike

[Maine Sail]

With all the threads on anchoring this week I thought it a good time to do another comparison. This time I took my 35 CQR and my 33 Rocna to a hard sand intertidal area to compare how they act while being set.

I apologize in advance for the lack of audio on the video. I tried to put some music behind it but YouTube scrubbed it for copyright issues after it took 3.5 hours to upload.... Live & learn.. Who knew you could not use Bela Fleck in the back ground of an anchor setting video. Oh well I'll have to try something else..

Oh and sorry for the misspelling in the last frame. I really do suck at video making..

Both anchors were set up exactly the same on the same exact hard sand only inches from one another so the densities could be as close to identical as one could hope for. There is no trickery here just actual performance under the same identical situations.

Hmmm the audio is still working..?

Audio track is Spanish Point by Bela Fleck (in fairness to the artist)

[ttyouyube]

[Solitude]

There seems to many more anchor discussions on this site than sail discussions.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Solitude

There seems to many more anchor discussions on this site than sail discussions.

That's cuz 90 percent of cruising is at anchor.

Or so I have read.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

With all the threads on anchoring this week I thought it a good time to do another comparison. This time I took my 35 CQR and my 33 Rocna to a hard sand intertidal area to compare how they act while being set.

I apologize in advance for the lack of audio on the video. I tried to put some music behind it but YouTube scrubbed it for copyright issues after it took 3.5 hours to upload.... Live & learn.. Who knew you could not use Bela Fleck in the back ground of an anchor setting video. Oh well I'll have to try something else..


I really do suck at video making..

Both anchors were set up exactly the same on the same exact hard sand only inches from one another so the densities could be as close to identical as one could hope for. There is no trickery here just actual performance under the same identical situations.

No apologies necessary.
Great video. Fantastic if you are a Rocna fan and don't care what the CQR fans are about.
Maybe someone will come on and post a technique for you for the next CQR test.
Un-frickkin-believable.

PS could you do that with a Delta please?

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

This time I took my 35 CQR and my 33 Rocna to a hard sand intertidal area to compare how they act while being set.

Greatly appreciated

[lancelot9898]

Hey Maine Sail,

Thanks for the video. A couple of comments about the video which may or may not be germine to the CQR's poor performance. One being that the pull is horizonal vs in real life there will be more of a vertical component present. The argument can be made however that the horizonal pull allows the anchor to dig in better, but still that is just an observation on my part pro or con. The other observation is that when anchored the boat will move from starboard to port causing the anchor to pivot about its hinge in the case of the CQR. I would suspect that maybe moveing the direction of pull from side to side will set that thing? I too have switched to the Manson Supreme type anchor replacing the CQR, but for many years that CQR has held put in some adverse wind conditions. In soft mud there is a problem with setting, but if it can be set then even the good old CQR holds and maybe will do better with wind shifts that the Manson due to the hinge. Just some random thoughts.

[Extemporaneous]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

With all the threads on anchoring this week I thought it a good time to do another comparison. This time I took my 35 CQR and my 33 Rocna to a hard sand intertidal area to compare how they act while being set.

I apologize in advance

And so you should!
Also please remove this video from the Web or I'll report it to the Administrators!!

Anyone want to buy my CQR?

VERY telling, Thanks.
Extemp.