# Which Bruce (claw) anchor to buy?



## Doodles (Mar 7, 2007)

I'm looking to get a 33# claw anchor and the price differences have me wondering. On the one hand West Marine has the Lewmar "Horizon Claw" for $99.99 which is casted constructed. Then there is the Manson Ray claw for $599 which is forged. I'm going to be using it in the Chesapeake Bay, so do I need to spend the extra $500?


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Assuming you've selected the correct size, you will be fine on the Chesapeake with the less expensive Lewmar version. 

Save your money for some light air sails.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Not likely. I have never seen a "claw" fail. Even the "Sea Dog Line" claw anchors seem to do ok even when abused by the fishermen around here. I have had the 13lbs and 22 lbs horizon claw and have been perfectly satisfied, especially by the price. The design is such that you can't go too far wrong from the original Bruce design. I think the brand name thing is more important for the prestige/yachty thing. I have seen more than one CQR completely mangled by a coral head...


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

If you can find an origional Bruce even better..I have one and even though I have been convinced to purchase better insurance in way of a Ronca or Manson Supreme..it has served us well on our SeaRay and will now find home on my bow as our lunch hook.


----------



## philsboat (Oct 16, 2006)

I bought the largest Bruce knockoff I could fit into the anchor locker on my Mirage 25 and it works fine!Best anchor I've ever had.It's a 10kg with45" of chain.Only dragged once in heavy weeds.
We can sleep peacefully now at anchor.
Relaxed Phil


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

Doodles said:


> Then there is the Manson Ray claw for $599 *which is forged.* (/QUOTE]
> 
> Are you sure of that??
> 
> For me it is CAST!..............


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*First question...*

The first question is what is your boat, and how much does she weigh? The claw/Bruce type anchors are decent setters but offer relatively low holding power and should to be up sized at least one size when compared to some other anchors..

Oh, and yes, the knock offs do and can break.. The original Bruce was heat treated and many if not all of the knock offs are just plain cast..

This is NOT my photo but would love to give credit to whom ever took it. If anyone knows please let us know..


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

This is NOT my photo but would love to give credit to whom ever took it. If anyone knows please let us know..

Oi Halekai 36, Answer on PM.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Maine Sail said:


> This is NOT my photo but would love to give credit to whom ever took it. If anyone knows please let us know..


The real question is not who took the photo but how they got they other half back! Ouch!


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Which are these? Lewmar?



ANCORALATINA said:


> What about this?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

AncoraLatina......No ADVERTISING or Marketing is permitted here. Last warning.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

Doodles said:


> I'm looking to get a 33# claw anchor ...


Some reason, in particular, you've settled on a claw anchor? I ask because it would seem, from what I've read, that the Rocna, Spade and Delta anchors generally hold the best in most bottoms, drag the least, and reset the most dependably.

References:
http://www.rocna.com/press/press_0610_wm_sail_testing.pdf
PS Anch0r Test Report - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

Jim


----------



## soulesailor (Nov 18, 2007)

[/QUOTE]

WOW!!! I've never heard of even the knock-offs breaking. It looks rusted in the middle, although you would never know that by the appearance of the exterior.

I have used the 33lb. Horizon Claw (which is supposedly guaranteed for life against breaking) as my normal, everyday anchor for the last few years. It holds well in most bottoms most of the time but lately has been letting me down, usually in very hard bottoms where it just won't bite in.

If you are anchoring in soft bottoms in normal conditions a $100 Claw is hard to beat. In hard bottoms I'd bump it up to a rocna or manson, which is what I'll be replacing my bruce with for next season.


----------



## Doodles (Mar 7, 2007)

ANCORALATINA said:


> Doodles said:
> 
> 
> > Then there is the Manson Ray claw for $599 *which is forged.* (/QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Personally, I wouldn't go with a claw style anchor, as they are relatively low on the holding power they can generate and can have problems re-setting if they pull out. 

I certainly wouldn't go with a copy of a Bruce either, but the originals are no longer being made.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> Personally, I wouldn't go with a claw style anchor, as they are relatively low on the holding power they can generate and can have problems re-setting if they pull out.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't go with a copy of a Bruce either, but the originals are no longer being made.


SD,

I think a lot depends on where the anchor will be used. A properly-sized claw anchor coupled with a 30 foot stretch of chain will give outstanding holding and resetting in the thick, easily penetrated, bottom mud that is ubiquitous here on the Chesapeake. We have two plows on our rollers (CQR and Delta) -- I would trade the Delta in a heartbeat for a Bruce.

As for the photo of the broken claw anchor. Absent any hard info about the incident, my guess is that the anchor did not break while in use. More likely, it was damaged in transit/shipping or somehow otherwise on land. It seems much less likely that someone went diving for the other piece after hauling up the shank. But it will be interesting to hear a definitive account of the circumstances, should one be forthcoming.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Its interesting that one of the tests show that the claw did not even set...... reeeeelly??? Are they trying to tell me that a Bruce anchor will not set? Also in the PS test they used anchors of different weights.... ie a Bruce 22lb versus a Wasi 58lb.....what gives?

The tests must be flawed. Many sailors swear by the Bruce.....and have used them in very "testing" conditions.



SEMIJim said:


> Some reason, in particular, you've settled on a claw anchor? I ask because it would seem, from what I've read, that the Rocna, Spade and Delta anchors generally hold the best in most bottoms, drag the least, and reset the most dependably.
> 
> References:
> http://www.rocna.com/press/press_0610_wm_sail_testing.pdf
> ...


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Gburton...that test result is not unusual...I think that the Bruce has been consistently ranked low on most of the tests done by independent organizations. That said...you have the practical experience of folks like Beth Leonard and Evans Starzinger who trust their lives to the quality and holding of the Bruce in harsher anchor conditions than you or I will probably ever consider. Maybe the tests don't tell the whole story.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Yeah - thats what I'm getting at Cam. These tests are very subjective, and I think, flawed.

Take the Northill anchor for example - if you read the Griffiths book they swear by these anchors but they are not even mentioned these days. I will grant that the Northill is for rocky conditions and I think the Bruce is better suited to those conditions as well so these tests do not show the whole picture.



camaraderie said:


> Gburton...that test result is not unusual...I think that the Bruce has been consistently ranked low on most of the tests done by independent organizations. That said...you have the practical experience of folks like Beth Leonard and Evans Starzinger who trust their lives to the quality and holding of the Bruce in harsher anchor conditions than you or I will probably ever consider. Maybe the tests don't tell the whole story.


----------



## christyleigh (Dec 17, 2001)

camaraderie said:


> Maybe the tests don't tell the whole story.


 That's certainly the way I see it with 6 years on a 12,000 lb. C320 held by a 33 lb. Bruce-Bruce setting first time every time and never a drag even when under-scoped with shifting winds.
Now after finishing my 3rd year with a 33lb. Lewmar-Bruce on my 18,000 lb. NC with a lot more windage it's same old story of 100% performance for me even when the wind and waves have kept me awake most of the night. I keep telling myself every year I should move up to a 44 lb for a better match.... but maybe I'll never bother.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

GBurton said:


> Its interesting that one of the tests show that the claw did not even set...... reeeeelly??? Are they trying to tell me that a Bruce anchor will not set?


They experienced what they experienced. So, I guess, yes: Reeeeelly .



GBurton said:


> Also in the PS test they used anchors of different weights.... ie a Bruce 22lb versus a Wasi 58lb.....what gives?


One presumes, and, in at least one of the articles they explicitly state, anchor weights are chosen based on manufacturer recommendations. How else should they do it?



GBurton said:


> The tests must be flawed. Many sailors swear by the Bruce.....and have used them in very "testing" conditions.


Maybe they are, maybe they're not. IIRC they're completely transparent wrt their testing methodology and their reasoning.

Jim


----------



## christyleigh (Dec 17, 2001)

SEMIJim said:


> Maybe they are, maybe they're not. IIRC they're completely transparent wrt their testing methodology and their reasoning.Jim


 Yaa... there is something reeeeal transparent about an anchor test matching a 22 lb. against a 53 lb.  Maybe the 22 lb. Bruce claw design just isn't heavy enough for a good easy set - don't know. But I've been testing 2 different 33 pounders on 2 different boats for 9 years and I just can't make it fail. Oh well .... I'll just keep trying.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

christyleigh said:


> Yaa... there is something reeeeal transparent about an anchor test matching a 22 lb. against a 53 lb.  Maybe the 22 lb. Bruce claw design just isn't heavy enough for a good easy set - don't know. But I've been testing 2 different 33 pounders on 2 different boats for 9 years and I just can't make it fail. Oh well .... I'll just keep trying.


The other question here, irrelevant of respective holding power, is why would anyone choose an anchor design that requires 53 lbs of mass when a competing anchor only recommends half that amount (or less) for your boat size? In other words, what's fundamentally wrong with the design that such a heavy anchor is needed?

Pound for pound is the best comparison among anchors made of the same material. We can choose whichever size we want based on the test outcome.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Stan...would you suggest it fair to test a 33 lb bruce v. a 33lb. Fortress? 
Same difference...some anchors use weight and design to hold. Others use design and materials to hold. You can't compare. You can only compare what displacement boats each is claimed to hold by the mfr. and then test the supposedly comparable anchors. 
One flaw is that some mfrs. are agressive in their holding claims and others are more conservative. In a test, the conservatively rated anchors thus win.
Note...nothing here changes my *opinion* that the new-generation of designs are the way to go. Just saying that the old, proven designs probably work just fine in the bottoms where they have become favored choices over the years and in the weather most anchor out in.

I think I've said before my Delta dragged 3 times in 6 years...at no time was it tested to it's "test" limits. Each time it was either a bottom that it could not hold in or my own darned fault. I think the focus on ultimate "test" holding power may be too great and more attention should be paid to the initial holding in a variety of TOUGH bottoms....jello mud, thick kelp, hard packed sand etc.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Don't use anything to read in PS as gospel truth... It is amateur at best, but they try.


----------



## SteveCox (Jul 12, 2006)

I can't remember where I saw it but somebody did a test here in Puget Sound with a variety of anchors and a variety of bottoms. The Bruce did not have all that great an ultimate hold BUT it was one of the most reliable and easily set anchors in the test. It is also one of the most popular up here based on what I see at the marina and seems to work for a lot of people. I guess I'm less concerned about tests and more concerned with results in the field.


----------



## christyleigh (Dec 17, 2001)

camaraderie said:


> Stan...would you suggest it fair to test a 33 lb bruce v. a 33lb. Fortress?
> Same difference...some anchors use weight and design to hold. Others use design and materials to hold. You can't compare. You can only compare what displacement boats each is claimed to hold by the mfr. and then test the supposedly comparable anchors.
> One flaw is that some mfrs. are agressive in their holding claims and others are more conservative. In a test, the conservatively rated anchors thus win.
> Note...nothing here changes my *opinion* that the new-generation of designs are the way to go. Just saying that the old, proven designs probably work just fine in the bottoms where they have become favored choices over the years and in the weather most anchor out in.
> ...


 Well Cam.... your experience dwarfs mine but I'm an arguer  So.....I understand what you mean about the Fortress for instance and actually I would welcome that test because with them - in my limited experience - it's getting the damn thing to set that's the problem. On my C320 I had to unhook my Bruce (and float mark) after a few days when the coasties and locals made me move away from a burning boat once so I figured I'd try my (I think 18 lb) Fortress. I spent a half hour trying to set it as it skipped over the eel grass that the Bruce - plop - set into. I gave up and fairly easily set a standard Danforth of about 25 lbs. which set fairly easily. Yes - I know it was only - 1 - test, unfair to the poor Fortress  
Another reason I like the Bruce is anchoring outside the breakwater at Vineyard Haven Martha's Vineyard where the cruising guides say you - must use something sharp like a Danforth etc... because of the hard pan. Plop - set Bruce no problem. Now although I say Plop - Set I do a proper set and try my best to pull it out before I relax  
So although I try to stay out of Religion and Politics arguments I'll still go on testing my Old Fashioned Bruce to see if I can drop my success rate to below 100%


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

camaraderie said:


> Stan...would you suggest it fair to test a 33 lb bruce v. a 33lb. Fortress?


Cam,

Can't speak for Stan, but I am talking about anchors made of the same materiel. As for the 33lb Fortress, it would be ridiculously large and cumbersome, so would not be very practical on the size boat that could get away with a 33 lb claw. Much the same can be said for a 53 lb Wasi -- except it would be the weight rather than the dimensions that would be impractical.

In other words, if I can only manage a 30 lb anchor due to my boat-size and ground tackle system limitation, in a perfect world I want the 30 lb anchor with the best holding power that will fit in my anchor roller or locker.

For some of us, the imperfect world rears its head in the form of $$, so we end up with next best (CQR/Delta/Claw) instead of a Rocna.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

christyleigh said:


> Yaa... there is something reeeeal transparent about an anchor test matching a 22 lb. against a 53 lb.


"Transparency," in this context, means "nothing is hidden." So yes: The fact that it's made clear exactly what is used in the tests _is_ transparent. Furthermore: If one mfgr. recommends a 22 lb. anchor for a certain size boat and the other recommends a 55 lb. anchor, are those not the anchors they should be using in the tests? Put another way: What will the consumer choose? Put still another way: Does it make sense to compare a properly-sized anchor against an over-sized anchor?

Jim


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

My point is that one should not rush out and buy an anchor based on these tests....unless anchoring on the beach with a tractor (which one of the tests is based on) or on that particular stretch of ocean etc etc.

The recommendation of the manufacturer was not used as to what size boat was used in the test anyway. The same boat was used in all the PS tests....a trawler.

Transparent reasoning can be flawed 



SEMIJim said:


> They experienced what they experienced. So, I guess, yes: Reeeeelly .
> 
> One presumes, and, in at least one of the articles they explicitly state, anchor weights are chosen based on manufacturer recommendations. How else should they do it?
> 
> ...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*CQR Pricing $$$$$$$$$$$*



JohnRPollard said:


> For some of us, the imperfect world rears its head in the form of $$, so we end up with next best (CQR/Delta/Claw) instead of a Rocna.


Have you priced a CQR lately? And people ***** about the price of Rocna's???


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> Have you priced a CQR lately? And people ***** about the price of Rocna's???


And I have one (cqr) I'll trade straight across...no scratch that ...I'll through in a dansforth..no 2 dansforths ok shoot make it three..a 20 lb mushroom and a tony Orlando CD..Ill have to buy the latter..

HEY MAIN...What becoming moderator at SBO gets you pull over here to finally get a name change...

I knew if I bucked the crowed long enough with your name Id eventually be in the right...

But I still aint giving you an e....


----------



## SteveCox (Jul 12, 2006)

Stillraining said:


> And I have one (cqr) I'll trade straight across...no scratch that ...I'll through in a dansforth..no 2 dansforths ok shoot make it three..a 20 lb mushroom and a tony Orlando CD..Ill have to buy the latter..


Tony Orlando CD????? I had hoped he died out with the demise of 8-tracks!!!!    

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Now back to the eternal argument over anchors.


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

SteveCox said:


> Tony Orlando CD????? I had hoped he died out with the demise of 8-tracks!!!!
> 
> Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Now back to the eternal argument over anchors.


Ya...I was fishing for Freesail on that one but I forgot ..he has all of them already..


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Tests Biased?*



GBurton said:


> Yeah - thats what I'm getting at Cam. These tests are very subjective, and I think, flawed.


I agree especially with the Sail magazine tests!

The Sail Magazine article had more than one test per anchor. They tested all the anchors at three different locations with multiple sets, pulls and scopes and they then reported exactly what the results were. These tests were done on "hard bottoms" and they did not hide that fact.

People on this and other forums have made ridiculous claims that Sail gave preference and may have "fixed" the results to satisfy advertisers?

Using this logic Sail magazine really cut off their supply of ad money that month. It seems three of the anchors that got beat up the worst were the LEWMAR Claw(Bruce type), the Lewmar CQR (Yes they now own CQR) and the West Marine Performance 20. Lewmar is one of Sails larger advertisers! In that months issue they had one full pager and one quarter page ad.

West Marine's VP of product development Chuck Hawley was actually involved in the testing and WM also spends ad money with Sail. Three of the best performers Manson, Hydrobubble & Rocna had zero, zilch, nada or no advertising in Sail Magazine at all.

I agree with GBurton that this test was a very "flawed" or biased, just not in the same way he sees it.

These tests were very biased, in favor of, when it came to the "tried and true" CQR & Claw but NOT their competitors. The testers/investigators went so far as to have "in-depth discussions" to figure out a way to get the Bruce and CQR to set better so they could at least get load test results. Now bear in mind this test was only a hard sand test so you can't translate these results to a soft mud bottom but the authors made it quite clear that these were hard sand tests not "pudding sets", something even a cinder block will do well in...

*Here's a direct quote:* *"The CQR is another tried-and-true anchor that yielded surprising results. The maximum load we recorded during our first three pulls on 5:1 scope was a very short spike up to 350 pounds, but most of the time we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom." 
* 
This to me sounds like they perhaps had to give the CQR a little "extra bias" by going slower than with other anchors and trying to "manually coax" it to set. How can anyone claim bias against the CQR or the Claw or Performance 20 when they clearly gave them preferential treatment?

This seems a little unfair if you are replicating test results using the SAME technique with all anchors to make it as fair as possible. The results don't surprise me as I own a Bruce and a CQR and though they perform well they are not always quick setters (CQR) or high holding (Bruce). My assertion is that 80% of boaters never actually set an anchor and get very lucky using basically a "rope on a rock" in rather benign summer conditions.

I suggest some of you begin diving on your anchors in a shallow spot to see what's going on down there I think you'd be surprised...

I used a Bruce 33 for years but about 20% of the time in soft mud bottoms, even with multiple sets, I could still drag it around the cove with my boats engine. Your sailboats aux engine should NOT be able to budge a properly sized and set anchor!!

That being said the clones are NOT Bruce anchors! The angles and flukes rarely if ever match that of the original and the original was heat treated...

Yes these tests were "BIASED" just in favor of the Claw and CQR and not the competition...


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

I agree John. Also - I would like a Rocna but there is no way to use it with my existing bowsprit/anchor roller setup. I have a 35 Delta and am trying to find a 44 Bruce. I also have a Danforth for the stern.



JohnRPollard said:


> Cam,
> 
> Can't speak for Stan, but I am talking about anchors made of the same materiel. As for the 33lb Fortress, it would be ridiculously large and cumbersome, so would not be very practical on the size boat that could get away with a 33 lb claw. Much the same can be said for a 53 lb Wasi -- except it would be the weight rather than the dimensions that would be impractical.
> 
> ...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Just curious as to why you think you couldn't use your existing bowsprit/anchor roller setup for a Rocna. If a 35 Delta fits, the Rocna will probably fit quite nicely.



GBurton said:


> I agree John. Also - I would like a Rocna but there is no way to use it with my existing bowsprit/anchor roller setup. I have a 35 Delta and am trying to find a 44 Bruce. I also have a Danforth for the stern.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the test  
If the people running the test are biasing the results one way or the other then I have to question their integrity.

Also - why no test in multiple conditions?



Maine Sail said:


> I agree especially with the Sail magazine tests!
> 
> The Sail Magazine article had more than one test per anchor. They tested all the anchors at three different locations with multiple sets, pulls and scopes and they then reported exactly what the results were. These tests were done on "hard bottoms" and they did not hide that fact.
> 
> ...


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

The arch on the Rocna would mean major surgery to my platform...
Also have not seen any tests of the Rocna in rocky bottom conditions



sailingdog said:


> Just curious as to why you think you couldn't use your existing bowsprit/anchor roller setup for a Rocna. If a 35 Delta fits, the Rocna will probably fit quite nicely.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

What arch? The rollbar isn't really a problem. I have a PDF of the Delta and Rocna profiles and they're not that different in terms of how the fit a bow roller. 

Testing anchors in rocky conditions is pretty difficult to do IMHO, since the bottom consistency is much more variable. However, the Rocna was designed by a Kiwi sailor and is often used by sailors in areas with lots of rock with pretty good results. I've gotten e-mails from several Rocna owners who have used them in the Patagonia area of Chile, around New Zealand, and I've used them in some parts of Buzzards Bay, which can be pretty rocky.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Care to post them? I would like to try and fit a Rocna to my roller/sprit.....



sailingdog said:


> What arch? The rollbar isn't really a problem. I have a PDF of the Delta and Rocna profiles and they're not that different in terms of how the fit a bow roller.
> 
> Testing anchors in rocky conditions is pretty difficult to do IMHO, since the bottom consistency is much more variable. However, the Rocna was designed by a Kiwi sailor and is often used by sailors in areas with lots of rock with pretty good results. I've gotten e-mails from several Rocna owners who have used them in the Patagonia area of Chile, around New Zealand, and I've used them in some parts of Buzzards Bay, which can be pretty rocky.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

i'll see if i can find it


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Maine Sail said:


> Have you priced a CQR lately? And people ***** about the price of Rocna's???


Sailor formerly known as Halekai ,

I haven't priced a new CQR lately. But I routinely see lightly used versions advertised for very reasonable prices. Bacon's in Annapolis usually has a pile of them, for a good price.



Maine Sail said:


> ....I agree with GBurton that this test was a very "flawed" or biased, just not in the same way he sees it.
> 
> These tests were very biased, in favor of, when it came to the "tried and true" CQR & Claw but NOT their competitors. The testers/investigators went so far as to have "in-depth discussions" to figure out a way to get the Bruce and CQR to set better so they could at least get load test results. Now bear in mind this test was only a hard sand test so you can't translate these results to a soft mud bottom but the authors made it quite clear that these were hard sand tests not "pudding sets", something even a cinder block will do well in...
> 
> ...


There's another way to look at the alleged bias. You feel that Bruce/CQR were given preferential treatment because they were not required to set the same way as the others. Someone else might feel that that bias was toward the other anchors, i.e. why must an anchor be set suddenly/quickly under high load? Why wasn't the test set method slow and steady?

Someone else might say that different style/design anchors require different methods for setting, and even the same anchor may require different setting methods depending on ground conditions.

So the one-method-fits-all approach to testing may in fact be biased.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Thanks....



sailingdog said:


> i'll see if i can find it


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

JRP-

I don't think the anchors were being expected to set under a high load quickly applied. IIRC, the load was applied gradually and built up to a high level, at least as far as the anchor could withstand. The point was that the loads and speeds were FURTHER reduced to try and improve the performance of the CQR and CLAW anchors. Personally, I'd prefer an anchor that isn't very finicky about the conditions under which it will set, since there are often extenuating circumstances that will affect the way it can be set... for instance, if you're anchoring after getting in to a harbor with a storm in progress... you might not be able to back down as slowly and gently on your anchor as you'd like...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

JohnRPollard said:


> Sailor formerly known as Halekai ,
> 
> I haven't priced a new CQR lately. But I routinely see lightly used versions advertised for very reasonable prices. Bacon's in Annapolis usually has a pile of them, for a good price.


I have two genuine CQR's that I can't even sell for a third of what they sell for!!! I guess they have become expensive door stops now that everyone wants the new generation anchors??


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

What size are they and how much do you want for them?



Maine Sail said:


> I have two genuine CQR's that I can't even sell for a third of what they sell for!!! I guess they have become expensive door stops now that everyone wants the new generation anchors??


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

And yet thousands of sailors have used them for years and been very happy with the performance. You make it sound like these other anchors are hopeless unless conditions are perfect when in actuality this is not the case. 



sailingdog said:


> JRP-
> 
> I don't think the anchors were being expected to set under a high load quickly applied. IIRC, the load was applied gradually and built up to a high level, at least as far as the anchor could withstand. The point was that the loads and speeds were FURTHER reduced to try and improve the performance of the CQR and CLAW anchors. Personally, I'd prefer an anchor that isn't very finicky about the conditions under which it will set, since there are often extenuating circumstances that will affect the way it can be set... for instance, if you're anchoring after getting in to a harbor with a storm in progress... you might not be able to back down as slowly and gently on your anchor as you'd like...


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Never mind...I found it. You can see quite clearly why the Rocna won't fit my boat.

Delta








Rocna
http://www.rocna.com/distributable/rocna_anchors_dimensions.pdf

My platform
http://http://www.sv-galena.com/WOM/images/FullSize/Bowsprit_platform.jpg



sailingdog said:


> i'll see if i can find it


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Maine Sail said:


> I have two genuine CQR's that I can't even sell for a third of what they sell for!!! I guess they have become expensive door stops now that everyone wants the new generation anchors??


Yeah, that's what I've seen, too, on the used market. I would not replace mine, but I'd like to have a Bruce or better yet a Rocna to complement it.

Anybody want a 25lb Delta?

P.S. The O.P. must be in shock at where this thread has gone. The original simple answer stands: Claw anchor will be fine for the Chesapeake.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Interesting that the Rocna NA site says nothing about rocks....

Rocna Anchors feature:

Fast Set, Typically Buried Within 3 Feet 
Tenacious Holding 
*Sand, Mud, Clay, or Weeds *
Stays Buried Even With Veering Loads 
Rugged Construction, with high tensile shank 
Local or Offshore cruising, Power or Sail 
...more details

Suncoast Marine | Marine Equipment | Rocna Anchors



sailingdog said:


> What arch? The rollbar isn't really a problem. I have a PDF of the Delta and Rocna profiles and they're not that different in terms of how the fit a bow roller.
> 
> Testing anchors in rocky conditions is pretty difficult to do IMHO, since the bottom consistency is much more variable. However, the Rocna was designed by a Kiwi sailor and is often used by sailors in areas with lots of rock with pretty good results. I've gotten e-mails from several Rocna owners who have used them in the Patagonia area of Chile, around New Zealand, and I've used them in some parts of Buzzards Bay, which can be pretty rocky.


----------



## christyleigh (Dec 17, 2001)

GBurton said:


> And yet thousands of sailors have used them for years and been very happy with the performance. You make it sound like these other anchors are hopeless unless conditions are perfect when in actuality this is not the case.


 Actually this is where I agree with Maine Sail on the CQR's which to me should have stayed in the fields plowing instead of the ocean beds because plowing is what they were designed for way before they were used as anchors. A friend of mine after dragging a few times with a CQR 35 added all chain to fix it - still drags. I have rope rode on my Bruce 33 because it doesn't need the help of All chain. On the other roller there is a CQR 35 on all chain (they both came with the boat) and the only reason I would ever use it is if I lost the Bruce.
How Maine and I manage to disagree 100% on the Bruce 33 with years on each side to back it up I don't know.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

JohnRPollard said:


> Anybody want a 25lb Delta?


Actually, I'd planned to get a 10kg (22lb) Delta for our boat 
Jim


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

christyleigh said:


> How Maine and I manage to disagree 100% on the Bruce 33 with years on each side to back it up I don't know.


I don't think we disagree at all. I thought my Bruce was a good setter but that for the weight, 33#, it lacked the resulting surface area to give it as high of a holding power as some of my other anchors in the 35# class.

I rode out some fierce winds on my 33# Bruce, usually on 9:1 or 10:1 scopes but never slept a wink and it usually dragged some but would reset. It never let me drag and drag like my CQR but it just does not offer the high holding power that many of my other anchors do.

I found that in some soft bottoms I could drag it with my boats engine no matter how many times I'd set and re-set it. That is just a pure lack of surface area/holding. My Bruce usually set on the first try about 85-90% of the time. If I had a 44# Bruce on that 36er it would have been perfect but I had a 33#...


----------



## Doodles (Mar 7, 2007)

JohnRPollard said:


> P.S. The O.P. must be in shock at where this thread has gone. The original simple answer stands: Claw anchor will be fine for the Chesapeake.


Not in shock, I know "anchor threads" can go on and on. But thanks to all this has been educational. In case you are wondering, I bought the Lewmar claw for the $100 and added 30' of 5/16 chain, so I think I'm o.k. for the Bay. Boat is 8,500 lbs.


----------



## harryrezz (Dec 10, 2003)

Don't have time to read this entire thread. Suffice it to say (and no doubt already said) diffeent anchors for different bottoms. In the southern Caribbean I usually have sand or sand with grass. I try never to anchor in coral, and the only other bottoms I encounter are gloppy mud or gravel.
I had a 45# CQR that came with the boat. it was pretty well worn, but worked well. Replaced it with a 60# CQR and it has NEVER let me down. Usually sets the first time, but in some bottoms it dows take some effort. Loves sand and tolerates grass. Will eventually penetrate gravel. Does NOT like mud. Secone anchor is a big Fortress (I do NOT like imitations!!) It, too, likes sand, and tolerated mud well also. Hates grass and does not like gravel. Between the two I sleep vey well at night. Always use at least 7:1 on all chain. Get lots of wind (20 kt is typical) and I have a LOT of windage.
Old fashoined? Perhaps - but if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
BTW - if you are in the area and are dragging, feel free to raft up with me!


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

harryrezz said:


> BTW - if you are in the area and are dragging, feel free to raft up with me!


Im on my way!!!...

Post some stories and pictures Harry..Id personally love to hear a couple.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

harryrezz said:


> Old fashoined? Perhaps - but if it ain't broke, don't fix it!


Yeah... When my 35lb CQR that came with the boat wears out I will replace it with one of these new fangled anchors  Until then, it has only failed me once when trying to anchor in heavy, heavy seagrass (next closest anchorage was 20 miles away and we didn't get there until 1am). It has held, never dragged, in rock coral-ish (Waikiki), sand, and gravel in winds up to 35 knots. I haven't found any mud to anchor in yet to try out the Fortress.... hmmm, guess I need to do some more cruising!


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

You should consider that 90% of the time, sailors are anchoring with winds lower than 20 knots, sometime gusting to 30.

Within these conditions, fortunately (_nearly_) all anchors are good, and CQR owners, Bruce owners, are all satisfied.

Some (_or many_) manufacturers suggest the size of their anchors for winds up to *30 knots*!..

Anchoring in "*extreme*" conditions is another game: hard sand like "concrete" of the Med, gravel, weed like the "cachiyuyo" we have on the "far South" - Nasty squalls "williwaws".. In these conditions, nearly ALL anchors from the previous century (Danforth - CQR - Bruce) have difficulties for setting and are frequently dragging..

As a manufacturer of anchors, I'm not allowed on this forum to give freely my opinion, but I'm also writing on many others "more open" forums.

Selecting oversized anchors should be one of the solutions, but extra weight on the bow is a *BAD* solution. *Modern anchors give a much higher holding for a much lower weight.. *
I'm very surprised to read comments like the one of "senior member" GBurton: "Interesting that the Rocna site says nothing about rocks.... »

No one *experienced sailor* will compare anchors in Rock, either your anchor will wedge itself between two rocks and you will not be able to recover it (and quite often this is the chain itself which will be bloked between rocks).. or the anchor will not set at all..

Fisherman anchors ? Keep them for your backyard, any lump of metal wedged between two rocks will be as efficient. Weight for weight, compared to the modern anchors, the « fisherman » is just RIDICULOUS »..

Keep talking and comparing "previous century" anchors.. the world in moving and "new generation" anchors give more security to "open minded" sailors.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

ANCORALATINA said:


> As a manufacturer of anchors, I'm not allowed on this forum to give freely my opinion, but I'm also writing on many others "more open" forums.


You weren't the first anchor guy to get in trouble...



> Keep talking and comparing "previous century" anchors.. the world in moving and "new generation" anchors give more security to "open minded" sailors.


I would like to as you a question as an anchor manufacturer. What took so long?

New materials? Computer design? More demand from the market? Better advertising? Word of mouth (internet forums)? Why all of a sudden all these new designs that claim so much superiority on the market? I remember when the Danforth and Bruce were considered the "new" designs and that was only 10 years ago! Why now?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

ANCORALATINA said:


> You should consider that 90% of the time, sailors are anchoring with winds lower than 20 knots, sometime gusting to 30.
> 
> Within these conditions, fortunately (_nearly_) all anchors are good, and CQR owners, Bruce owners, are all satisfied.
> 
> ...


Actually, we more than welcome your opinion... we just don't welcome you or any other manufacturer pushing their own product....that's called advertising, and if you want to do that...pay for it.



> Selecting oversized anchors should be one of the solutions, but extra weight on the bow is a *BAD* solution. *Modern anchors give a much higher holding for a much lower weight.. *
> I'm very surprised to read comments like the one of "senior member" GBurton: "Interesting that the Rocna site says nothing about rocks.... »
> 
> No one *experienced sailor* will compare anchors in Rock, either your anchor will wedge itself between two rocks and you will not be able to recover it (and quite often this is the chain itself which will be bloked between rocks).. or the anchor will not set at all..


It depends on whether GBurton was talking about rocky conditions or solid rock... I've anchored in areas where the mud had large rocks in it... not too difficult to find such conditions given that most of Cape Cod and Buzzards Bay are formed from the glacier tailings.



> Fisherman anchors ? Keep them for your backyard, any lump of metal wedged between two rocks will be as efficient. Weight for weight, compared to the modern anchors, the « fisherman » is just RIDICULOUS »..
> 
> Keep talking and comparing "previous century" anchors.. the world in moving and "new generation" anchors give more security to "open minded" sailors.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

ANCORALATINA said:


> As a manufacturer of anchors, I'm not allowed on this forum to give freely my opinion, but I'm also writing on many others "more open" forums.


I suspect it's more likely that you're not allowed to advertise, you're required to be respectful of your competition (even if they're lower-cost "clones") and you must always disclose that you're an anchor manufacturer/representative when the subject is anchors, so readers can take that into account. Otherwise I'm pretty certain your comments are welcome--particularly if you have a really bitchin' new design that results in an anchor that isn't overly bulky, doesn't weigh a ton, sets quickly and easily in any bottom, holds like it was bedded in concrete, resets quickly and positively on wind/tide/current shifts, doesn't drag, is easy to release, doesn't haul a half-a-ton of muddy bottom up with it, and doesn't cost an arm and a leg. 

Jim


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

So which anchor do you recommend anyway? You might want to change your avatar 



ANCORALATINA said:


> You should consider that 90% of the time, sailors are anchoring with winds lower than 20 knots, sometime gusting to 30.
> 
> Within these conditions, fortunately (_nearly_) all anchors are good, and CQR owners, Bruce owners, are all satisfied.
> 
> ...


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

GBurton...he recommends his OWN. He is not allowed to do that here unless he does it in a paid for ad. He has been warned several times. His competitor is sitting on the sidelines right now for similar activity.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

GBurton said:


> You might want to change your avatar


    That's a good one. It took me a minute, but I got it.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Got it Cam - which one is that?



camaraderie said:


> GBurton...he recommends his OWN. He is not allowed to do that here unless he does it in a paid for ad. He has been warned several times. His competitor is sitting on the sidelines right now for similar activity.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

GBurton said:


> Got it Cam - which one is that?


LOL!

Google is your friend, GBurton. Try this: Another Funny-Lookin' Anchor.

Jim


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Duh!


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

camaraderie said:


> GBurton...he recommends his OWN. He is not allowed to do that here unless he does it in a paid for ad. He has been warned several times. His competitor is sitting on the sidelines right now for similar activity.


Y'know, Cam, this is SailNet's house, and I realize I'm only a guest, but I gotta tell ya: I'm pretty sure this is _the only_ web forum in which I participate that actively discourages manufactures' reps from participating. Seems kind of counter-productive - just to _maybe_ make a buck or two off somebody for possibly a short while.

Jim


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Aaah ....ok thanks. Never heard of it 



SEMIJim said:


> LOL!
> 
> Google is your friend, GBurton. Try this: Another Funny-Lookin' Anchor.
> 
> Jim


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Semi...this is a COMMERCIAL forum run by the sailnet store owners AND advertising helps pay for the site. We actively encourage VENDORS to answer QUESTIONS about their products from members and contribute EXPERTISE and share FACTS. We do NOT encourage free marketing efforts or advertising pitches or disparagement of competitors (some of whom may be advertisers on this site.) Hope that makes the policy a bit more clear. These "anchor guys" are notorious on many of the other forums. That is not going to happen here. 

It is much less about making a buck or two (though allowing some to advertise for free while others pay is important) ...and very much a conscious decision about the character and nature of the dialog and what we want it to be here. Anyway...that is the reasoning behind the vendor rules here.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Fisherman Anchors?*

Hey, don't knock the fisherman anchor. I have an 8 lb fisherman on my boat and won't leave home without it! I clip it on my anchor rode with about 10 feet of 1/4 inch nylon tied to the bow roller, and let it drop. Here on the Mississippi we frequently have current downstream and wind upstream. Sometimes that makes the boat wander, and one can wake up in the morning with 4 turns of anchor rode around the keel! The fisherman anchor keeps the rode several feet below the keel, so my boat drifts OVER it! Well, I guess a window sash weight would work as well!   Or a brick, if I can figure out how to tie it!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

SEMIJim said:


> I'm pretty sure this is _the only_ web forum in which I participate that actively discourages manufactures' reps from participating.


Ummm Sailnet does NOT discourage manufacturers from participating in fact they welcome them! As long as the Craig Smith's or AnchorLatina's of the world can participate in a forum without hawking or selling their product they are more than welcome to engage in dialect! They rarely participate though without it going down the road of my product is better and you should buy it and this product sucks..



SEMIJim said:


> Seems kind of counter-productive - just to _maybe_ make a buck or two off somebody for possibly a short while.


While we all enjoy these FREE forums, that we are FREE to use, they must be paid for through advertising or sales. If Sailnet did not have these policies it would be a blood bath of manufactureres and there would be no sailors left.

Every forum I use in the sailing community has strict guidelines that forbid selling products in the forums..


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

rtd-

what you're doing is using the fisherman's anchor as a kellet. any heavy weight can serve as a kellet.


RAGTIMEDON said:


> Hey, don't knock the fisherman anchor. I have an 8 lb fisherman on my boat and won't leave home without it! I clip it on my anchor rode with about 10 feet of 1/4 inch nylon tied to the bow roller, and let it drop. Here on the Mississippi we frequently have current downstream and wind upstream. Sometimes that makes the boat wander, and one can wake up in the morning with 4 turns of anchor rode around the keel! The fisherman anchor keeps the rode several feet below the keel, so my boat drifts OVER it! Well, I guess a window sash weight would work as well!   Or a brick, if I can figure out how to tie it!


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

You big suckup. Pushing hard for that modship eh?  



Maine Sail said:


> Ummm Sailnet does NOT discourage manufacturers from participating in fact they welcome them! As long as the Craig Smith's or AnchorLatina's of the world can participate in a forum without hawking or selling their product they are more than welcome to engage in dialect! They rarely participate though without it going down the road of my product is better and you should buy it and this product sucks..
> 
> While we all enjoy these FREE forums, that we are FREE to use, they must be paid for through advertising or sales. If Sailnet did not have these policies it would be a blood bath of manufactureres and there would be no sailors left.
> 
> Every forum I use in the sailing community has strict guidelines that forbid selling products in the forums..


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

GBurton said:


> You big suckup. Pushing hard for that modship eh?


Actually NO WAY! I'm already a mod on another sailing forum. The last thing I need is another MOD job..


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Just kidding


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

GBurton said:


> You big suckup. Pushing hard for that modship eh?


MS strikes me as sane, and no sane person that's ever moderated a discussion forum before ever purposefully angles to do so again. Trust me.

Jim


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

> _I'm pretty sure this is the only web forum in which I participate that actively discourages manufactures' reps from participating. Seems kind of counter-productive -_


Paying to advertise is a choice. But paid advertising must also generate a return of investment.
This particular thread has been viewed (as of today) by 1,688 people.

Considering that approximately each people was looking about five times at this thread, we can deduce that 340 sailor could have read an advertising posted there.

The profile of the « mean » sailor who is participating to this thread is *VERY CONSERVATIVE*, talking about products developed *more than 80 years ago* such as CQR, Danforth or Bruce anchors, (_not talking about the Fisherman_!) or about "kellets"!. This is a perfect mirror of the Sailnet's "Anchor Locker". Very few forumnites are considering « New gen » Anchors.

As nobody (or_ very few_) participants are aware of new developments, nobody could talk about them and/or give explanation of why they are different of, why they are better.

*As Manufacturers are NOT WELCOME* to talk about their products and to explain why they have developed a new product and which characteristics are better than the ones of the competition, the forum will always stay *VERY CONSERVATIVE*, talking *endlessly* about the same « old generation » products.
Therefore it will not be at all interesting to advertise here! Also considering that they are many other forums where the « ambiance » is completely different, and where the moderators are much more open minded.

Question? How much will it cost to advertise on this forum and what will be the return of investment??
Will Sailnet add a new product line to their very conservative catalog of anchors?

An Outstanding product will advertise by itself. Wait and then you could learn more about « new products » => on other nautical forums !!!


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

ANCORALATINA said:


> Paying to advertise is a choice. But paid advertising must also generate a return of investment.


It is the same for any business. But if you conclude that paying to advertise is not worth the investment, the alternative is that you don't advertise at all in that media. You can't choose to simply advertise for FREE. No publication allows that.



ANCORALATINA said:


> The profile of the « mean » sailor who is participating to this thread is *VERY CONSERVATIVE*, talking about products developed *more than 80 years ago* such as CQR, Danforth or Bruce anchors, (_not talking about the Fisherman_!) or about "kellets"!. This is a perfect mirror of the Sailnet's "Anchor Locker". Very few forumnites are considering « New gen » Anchors.


But most of us have these anchors already, purchased long before the "new" generation of anchors was developed. They have and continue to provide good holding in a variety of conditions. They probably won't wear out in our lifetime.

If you have good tires on your car, with 50,000 miles of tread-wear remaining, that do everything you ask of them -- would you run out and replace them simply because Michelin claims they have developed a much better tire?



ANCORALATINA said:


> As nobody (or_ very few_) participants are aware of new developments, nobody could talk about them and/or give explanation of why they are different of, why they are better.


We are well aware of them. There are numerous threads here on Sailnet and elsewhere that discuss them ad nauseum. But sailors can never seem to get enough on anchors, so I'm sure the discussion will continue.



ANCORALATINA said:


> Question? How much will it cost to advertise on this forum and what will be the return of investment??


I don't have those figures. You can inquire with SailNet and make your own judgement. But you do not have the option of advertising for free. Those are the rules here.



ANCORALATINA said:


> Will Sailnet add a new product line to their very conservative catalog of anchors?


Maybe. But probably not if you harass them.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 16, 2006)

I us a super-max and love it.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Wow...*



ANCORALATINA said:


> The profile of the « mean » sailor who is participating to this thread is *VERY CONSERVATIVE*, talking about products developed *more than 80 years ago* such as CQR, Danforth or Bruce anchors, (_not talking about the Fisherman_!) or about "kellets"!. This is a perfect mirror of the Sailnet's "Anchor Locker". Very few forumnites are considering « New gen » Anchors.
> 
> As nobody (or_ very few_) participants are aware of new developments, nobody could talk about them and/or give explanation of why they are different of, why they are better.


Wow you are way off base on this comment! There are many of us here who love and DO USE new generation anchors!!

Here is the current list of anchors I personally own.

Rocna
Manson Supreme
Super Max
2 Spade's one aluminum one steel
2 CQR's 
Fortress
Bruce
Danforth

I sold my Delta Fast set to a neighbor...

Before you paint with a broad brush about Sailneters lack of understanding of new products/anchors you might want to look into who's posting on the forum and what they actually use..! I know quite a few others here who also use newer generation anchors.

I have not used a Bruce, CQR or Danforth in years and do not plan to either..

You will not win friends, just as Craig Smith has not taking the argumentative route and slamming forum guidelines.

I know the forum I moderate has the same policy and if you do it over there on SailboatOwners.com we will treat you the same. Talk anchoring all you want but DO NOT try to sell your product. If it is as good as you claim your customers will do that for you.

I have been talkiing the merits proper anchoring technique and of both the Rocna and Manson Supreme ad nauseaum and I do it because I'd love to never be dragged onto again by folks who use poorer performing products!!


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

ANCORALATINA said:


> The profile of the « mean » sailor who is participating to this thread is *VERY CONSERVATIVE*, ...Very few forumnites are considering « New gen » Anchors.


Perhaps. But I'm not in that category. And we _are_ in the market for a new anchor. (However, this is a very price-sensitive thing.)



ANCORALATINA said:


> *As Manufacturers are NOT WELCOME* to talk about their products and to explain why they have developed a new product and which characteristics are better than the ones of the competition, ...


It's not so much you aren't _welcome_, per se, but more that you aren't allowed to advertise, and SailNet perhaps has a very strict definition of what constitutes "advertising."

I understand SailNet's point. And where do you draw the line? OTOH: If answering questions In The Wrong Way can easily draw a rebuke, esp. if a representative isn't paying for the privilege, I can see how such people would simply refrain, leaving people like me to seek answers elsewhere. This is the "counter-productiveness" to which I earlier referred.

In the same vein: I don't know what questions I can ask a manufacturer's representative about their product that might result in an answer that'll get them censored or banned. Not being one who pays all that much attention to banner adverts _anywhere_, that would include here (sorry), I have no idea whom somebody like our erstwhile correspondent here might offend by citing comparisons I might request. So, all-in-all, I'll simply forgo the exercise. All of this is most-definitely not by way of complaint, but, merely, as I had intended in my earlier comments, an observation.

I don't know as there's an easy answer.



ANCORALATINA said:


> ...the forum will always stay *VERY CONSERVATIVE*, talking *endlessly* about the same « old generation » products.


That is not at all an accurate portrayal of SailNet's membership.



ANCORALATINA said:


> An Outstanding product will advertise by itself. Wait and then you could learn more about « new products » => on other nautical forums !!!


I may be the odd man out in this respect: But I hang out only here for my on-line sailing community fix.

Jim


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Ancoralatina—

BTW, as Maine Sail has pointed out, several of us own and are using next generation anchors. MS, myself, and probaby six or seven others are using Rocnas, and probably a like number are using Manson Supremes and a similar amount using Spades. To say that Sailnet users aren't interested or knowledgeable about next generation anchors is complete BS. IF anything, you're crappy attitude and BS is going to turn people off from your anchor rather than give them incentive to try it.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

FWIW

I bought the Manson Supreme 45 lb anchor. Would have considered the Rocna except for the bad manners of the owner.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

To quote S D --What are you doing using a fisherman's anchor as a kellet? 
Yes, I know any weight will do, but what else can one do with an 8 lb fisherman's anchor? It's too heavy for a paper weight, and I sure as heck can't use it as my primary anchor on my 22,000 lb sailboat! I tried using it for fishing, but it dragged the bobber down!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Please enlighten us*



ANCORALATINA said:


> An Outstanding product will advertise by itself. Wait and then you could learn more about « new products » => on other nautical forums !!!


Can you enlighten us as to which forums invite free advertising of product?

Here's a quick list of the forums I use and their commercial interest policy on advertising. All these forums allow commercial vendors to participate but NOT advertise.

Sailboatowners.com = NO
Cape Dory Forums = NO
Plastic Classic Forums = NO
Cruisers Forums = NO
Cruisers Log's = NO
SSCA Forums = NO
Boat US Forums = NO
Cruising World Forums = NO
Maine Coast Forums = NO

If you want to go play over at SA feel free!!!


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

SemiJ..I understood your intent and tried to provide our rationale. No offense taken whatsoever. It is a fine line we try to walk. 

Ancora...rather than respond to your specious arguments which have been de-bunked already, I will just say that you are no advertising genius. You run a little company with an untested product that has no distribution and no name recognition and you don't do any advertising on any site. You hope to create some business by haunting the internet chat forums touting your products and criticizing the competition and generating some orders through your "state of the art website"...fine...good plan...you just ain't getting away with it here.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

BTW, here's a screenshot of ancoralatina's "state of the art" website. As you can see, whoever designed it apparently learned webdesign by sending in boxtops from cereal boxes. The design sucks... there are text tags for missing artwork by the looks of it. On large screens it majorly fails, since the header image isn't wide enough and nothing lines up correctly. The menu on the left should have some padding or margin on the left to make it more readable, but it doesn't. The list goes on...

State of the art my butt... my six-year-old nephew could do better with a box of crayons.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

wow.. this thread sure has degenerated! 

While we are bashing Anchor Latina I would just like to add that their selection guide concludes that their 16lb anchor will hold my boat in 60 knot winds.... Hmmm..... Hurricane force winds and a 16lb anchor.. I'll pass on that.


----------

