# "New Generation Anchors"



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

This is such a self-serving term, and ever since the Rocna guy used everyone throws it around like it means something. What makes their designs more "New Generation" than the one invented a year, or 5 years earlier. It's not the roll bar, which still doesn't offer any advantage from what I've seen. After all, the Spade Guy considered himself a part of the "New Generation." Heck, he even wrote a book on anchoring, and surprise, he recommended ....the Spade.

I use a Fortress and a Delta, and I don't think either of them are dubbed "New Generation" so am I to assume they are "Old Generation" and not worthy of a cruising vessel. 

I am thinking I'm going to invent an anchor design, just slightly different than what already exists, and call it the "Newest Generation?" I'll be considered a phenom and I might even write my own book on anchoring. 

As for tests, there seem to be so many, and you can make of them what you will. There seem to be a lot of variables that are considered critical by whoever is interpreting the results. We need "New Generation" anchor tests.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Pamlicotraveler said:


> This is such a self-serving term, and ever since the Rocna guy used everyone throws it around like it means something. What makes their designs more "New Generation" than the one invented a year, or 5 years earlier. It's not the roll bar, which still doesn't offer any advantage from what I've seen...


Spoken like someone who may never have actually used a Spade, Bugel, Rocna, Manson Supreme, or Mantus, sounds like to me... ;-)



Pamlicotraveler said:


> I use a Fortress and a Delta, and I don't think either of them are dubbed "New Generation" so i assume they are "Old Generation" and not worthy of a cruising vessel.


Last time I wandered into the back room at Bacon's in Annapolis, there were probably more Deltas on consignment there than any other single type... If you're happy with yours, that's great... But there would appear to be some indication that not everyone out there shares your opinion, and many sailors are 'trading up' from plows, to the 'next generation'...



Pamlicotraveler said:


> After all, the Spade Guy considers himself a part of the "New Generation." Heck, he even wrote a book on anchoring, and surprise, he recommends the Spade.


Again, you appear to be a bit bit behind the times ;-)

Even "The Spade Guy" himself would likely now consider himself to be part of the 'Past Generation'...

Anchor designer Alain Poiraud deceased - Ocean Navigator - March/April 2011


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Pamlicotraveler said:


> This is such a self-serving term, and ever since the Rocna guy used everyone throws it around like it means something. What makes their designs more "New Generation" than the one invented a year, or 5 years earlier. It's not the roll bar, which still doesn't offer any advantage from what I've seen. After all, the Spade Guy considers himself a part of the "New Generation." Heck, he even wrote a book on anchoring, and surprise, he recommends the Spade.
> 
> I use a Fortress and a Delta, and I don't think either of them are dubbed "New Generation" so am I to assume they are "Old Generation" and not worthy of a cruising vessel.
> 
> ...


I used a genuine CQR for about 40 years. Then I got a Rocna. I was like you, poo pooing the idea of "next generation" anchors.
I wrote a long post after a year on the Rocna, you should search it out.
Over a thousand days on that Rocna, and it sets first time EVERY time and has never dragged, not even a tiny bit, in all kinds of conditions and lots of different bottoms.Suffice it to say, after over 55 years as a cruiser and professional sailor, I was wrong, and you are too.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Poiroud's probable greatest contribution was the 'weighted tip' anchor, the spades are lead loaded in their tips. 
Only in soft goo did I EVER have an anchoring problem with my 44# spade. Alain's suggestion to me at that time .... "you have to allow time for the leaded tip to sink that anchor down deep into the muck, sometimes 20 minutes before pulling strain"; and in the ~15 years since, Ive never had to use my big fortress 'mud hook'.


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

Rich, if I'm not mistaken the Delta has a ballasted tip...not sure that it's lead.

Capta, I'm sure the Rocna is good. My problem is with the term "New Generation Anchor" being thrown around as if anything designed and created before a certain time is outdated. It's a marketing term.


----------



## rnixon (May 7, 2013)

Pamlicotraveler said:


> My problem is with the term "New Generation Anchor" being thrown around as if anything designed and created before a certain time is outdated. It's a marketing term.


Agreed. It'd be more easily accepted if these anchors used some new technology (beyond, perhaps, for their design), but they're still just lumps of metal. For example, it'd be nice to have an anchor with a video feed up to the boat, so you can see what's going on. I could even imagine one that is powered and bores into the sea bed. They might even already exist.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

I don't really care what they call it.. I do know that our new same-weight Mantus is hooking up in a variety of situations much better than our CQR did - esp since we went to a MAX prop - it's like the extra thrust made it easier to drag the CQR where we don't seem to be able to 'drag' the Mantus the same way.

We're lucky in that we rarely get big winds in our regular anchorages overnight, esp in summer, but we still rest better with our "new" whatever anchor!


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Last time I wandered into the back room at Bacon's in Annapolis, there were probably more Deltas on consignment there than any other single type...


That's only because I don't think Bacon's will take CQRs anymore. There is a welding shop around the corner that converts CQR anchors into really nice mailboxes.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

After using a Manson Supreme on my last cruise, (and a CQR) I really do think they are a lot better than plows in most conditions.

That doesn't mean a plow is bad, it just means, I've never seen an anchor that sets as fast and well as that Manson Supreme does. And, I'm pretty sure any spade type anchor would perform about the same, so it's not like I'm in love with Manson.

I think it's a good design, maybe not perfect, but close enough until perfect shows up.


----------



## TomMaine (Dec 21, 2010)

I'm still old gen. and on my second CQR in 30 years of coastal sailing. 

If I lose this one, I'll buy a new gen. Better performance and save some money! Why not? 

CQR's do drag a little but overall they still work pretty well, despite the news of the next gen.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Believe it or not there really is a 'next generation' of anchors. Specifically the SHHP anchors. There are three main classes of anchors on the registry. 

1) Stockless anchor - this is the benchmark the others are rated against. 
2) HHP (High Holding Power) - These are tested to produce twice the holding power of a Stockless and includes most of the traditional crusing anchors like the CQR, Fortress, and Delta
3) SHHP (Super High Holding Power) - these are tested to produce at least four times the holdi power of a Stockless. Ronca, Manson, and their ilk are found here. 
4) VHHP (? Very HHP) - is being discussed, and will likely be 6 times the holding power of the Stockless. No current designs (I am aware of) currently meet this designation, but there is hope. 

Frankly I think trying to draw a substantive difference between the different designs of SHHP anchors is pretty difficult. But there is a clear line between HHP and SHHP designs. So much so that Lloyds, ABYC, ect will allow the same ship to carry a much smaller anchor and remain in class.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Isn't "new generation" anything other than a CQR, Bruce, Fishermans, or Rock with a Hole in It?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Stumble said:


> Believe it or not there really is a 'next generation' of anchors. Specifically the SHHP anchors. There are three main classes of anchors on the registry.
> 
> 1) Stockless anchor - this is the benchmark the others are rated against.
> 2) HHP (High Holding Power) - These are tested to produce twice the holding power of a Stockless and includes most of the traditional crusing anchors like the CQR, Fortress, and Delta
> ...


I've always kind of looked at these as a misuse of words as they are just referencing the load an anchor will take before it breaks. So what?


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Yup, a rock is old school and they do still work nicely. I had a Danforth, which was much better than a rock. My Delta worked was more convenient. And then I got a Manson Supreme, which is a very nice compromise.

Yup, the rock still works. Concrete slabs make nice moorings. But it would be a little silly to say they work well in this context. I defended my Delta, but I don't anymore... other than to say I do like the way it launched and came up clean. But it would need to be at least 50% heavier to do the same job as my "new generation" anchor. Sometimes we learn better ways. And given the shortcomings of roll bars, we should expect a "newer generation" about the time these wear out. Good.


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

I looked on the boats in Turkey - European, American mainly - and I was surprised how many are still using a CQR as their primary anchor. These are cruising boats - blue water, if you will - with wind vanes, and solar panels, and they are using them for whatever reason. They can afford what they want, I presume, but have hung onto these.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I still have the 75lb CQR hanging off the bow roller that my PO installed when he commissioned the boat. Combined with 1/2" all chain, it's been holding us just fine in our local waters. I get a good set about 8-9 times out of 10 on the first try. I have dragged for sure on occasion, but not more than a boat length. I have always thought that the shear weight of our CQR and heavy chain has had more to do with our anchoring success than the design. It's pretty clear that CQRs have limitations.

When I replace it (not if), I will go with a next generation anchor. Probably Rocna. Next-gen are commonly identified by the concave fluke and roll bar. The spade's weighted tip to roll the fluke over is different, IMO. 

In the end, you can call any of these anchors anything you want. You wouldn't be the first. Next-gen does have a fairly common identification and are clearly superior anchors to those that came before.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Pamlicotraveler said:


> I looked on the boats in Turkey - European, American mainly - and I was surprised how many are still using a CQR as their primary anchor. These are cruising boats - blue water, if you will - with wind vanes, and solar panels, and they are using them for whatever reason. They can afford what they want, I presume, but have hung onto these.


Yes, years of cruising experience verses picking up the latest, greatest, slick glossy magazine hype that so many voyeurs want to cling too.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

I still use my CQR as the main anchor mainly because it has always worked, has never slipped and has held in all kinds of bottoms, in all kinds of current changes, through a couple of tropical storms. I also keep a Bruce and a Danforth aboard as well as a second, smaller CQR. I guess the answer as to why people still have CQRs is that they work regardless of the somewhat questionable criticism as of late. I will eventually replace with a next gen anchor but will certainly be wary until it proves to be as good as my CQR.


----------



## TomMaine (Dec 21, 2010)

Going back, a few gens, I watched an 80' schooner sail into a fairly crowded anchorage last season. The massive old boat was moving pretty well when the captain turned the bow into the wind and up a slot between several boats. Loud rattling rang out as two experienced and agile bowmen wrestled down 2 big jibs from the bow sprit netting. 

Then the whole deck crew went hush and the schooner coasted briskly up the slot. 

2 crew were ready at the hawser and chain of an anchor(fishermen style) the likes of which you only see in front of cliche' clam shacks in Southern Maine. 

At a precise moment the command - "let go anchor" was the only sound heard. That clam shack anachronism and hundreds of pounds of chain rattled quickly off the foredeck. 

80' of black schooner coasted on, and on,....then stopped...dead. 

As the schooner slowly drifted back on the headwind to a perfect spot between boats, nobody said a word. 

There's better anchors than that old fishermen but only a fool would advise the captain his old anchor doesn't work.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Some 40 years ago, in my old 42' Wheeler Playmate, I anchored in Newport Harbor with the ancient, clumsy, heavy, Luke type anchor within 50' of the rip-rap while a gale blew all night right through the mouth of the harbor. She never moved an inch. Some of those anchors do actually work Wish I still had that one.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Don0190 said:


> I've always kind of looked at these as a misuse of words as they are just referencing the load an anchor will take before it breaks. So what?


The ratings have nothing to do with breaking strength, but with holding power. I'd the amount of tension that can be applied before the anchor comes free.

If it's good enough for the classification societies that the anchors have proven this (and anchor testing is notoriously difficult) it's good enough for me.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Thinking about the factors that determine an anchor's holding ability, the hull configuration has got to play a big part in the amount and type of stress transferred to the anchor. Things like catenary, rope vs chain, and snubbers imo have a huge effect upon whether an anchor holds or pulls. I know we've discussed catenary ad nauseum but it's one pertinent factor. That's what makes an honest comparison or any test very difficult. My old tub has a very narrow beam and has a great percentage of the boat in the water, (it also has an oversized anchor as in manufacturer's sizing specs) as compared to a trawler yacht or a sailboat with 100 yards of tent canvas and clear vinyl flapping in the breeze. So, it may be as much the boat configuration as the anchor shape that factors into the real-life equation.

One undeniable thing I see in the next gen anchors is that they seem to grab very quickly and should be very good in grass because of the sharp, weighted point.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Scope is another, perhaps most important, variable. 

An anchors ability to hold under a constant straight load is of little interest to me. That's the way it seems most tests are done and most anchors, when set properly, are going to keep you off the rocks just fine. I'm only concerned when the boat keeps swinging 30 degrees side to side or there is two foot chop in the anchorage that is putting varying stress on the set. I've never seen this test. I take as a proxy, an anchors ability to set itself. Next-gens win.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Minnewaska said:


> Scope is another, perhaps most important, variable.
> 
> An anchors ability to hold under a constant straight load is of little interest to me. That's the way it seems most tests are done and most anchors, when set properly, are going to keep you off the rocks just fine. I'm only concerned when the boat keeps swinging 30 degrees side to side or there is two foot chop in the anchorage that is putting varying stress on the set. I've never seen this test. I take as a proxy, an anchors ability to set itself. Next-gens win.


Definitely the "whiplash" loads that are by far the greatest as the boat reaches the end of one cycle and then get abruptly yanked in the opposite direction. If in 30 knots or so and feel this is going to happen I almost always put out a second anchor to eliminate the swing. I would rather anchor away from other boats in order to use two in that situation.

I wonder about the comparative fluke face square inches and angle of attack between a next gen and a Bruce/CQR/Danforth. When it comes down to it, once buried in mud or sand, the amount of pull required to dislodge the bottom in front of it depends mainly on the amount of bottom it's up against and the angle of the blade.


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Scope is another, perhaps most important, variable.
> 
> An anchors ability to hold under a constant straight load is of little interest to me. That's the way it seems most tests are done and most anchors, when set properly, are going to keep you off the rocks just fine. I'm only concerned when the boat keeps swinging 30 degrees side to side or there is two foot chop in the anchorage that is putting varying stress on the set. I've never seen this test. I take as a proxy, an anchors ability to set itself. Next-gens win.


Minne: Here's one of the better tests I've seen:

Testing the new generation of anchors

You can still pick away at the methodology (sample size, variable medium, subjective interpretation of data, etc.). But in truth, real-world anchoring involves so many of these same variables that over-controlled, reductive tank tests are not helpful, either. The three factors pushing us toward a NextGen anchor are:

1. Good performance in a range of bottom type. The newer anchors perform adequately in almost all bottoms, where older designs each had their pronounced weakness. Only foibles are short-scope applications and slime-over-bedrock, where really there is no substitute for pure weight. Or a change of venue. 

2. Quick reset if tripped. Our intended cruising grounds have tidal ranges in excess of 21 feet, and they are prone to nighttime katabatic winds of 40kts from a different direction than daytime. We want an anchor that provides the quickest re-set, without having to 'milk' the anchor in or hold the boat stationary for forty minutes while the anchor obtains some kind of permission from the seabed.

3. Holding power to weight. Any anchor, even a Fisherman or rock with a hole in it, will keep you in one place if it is heavy enuf & has time to settle. A 40# CQR or Bruce would do for our 30' sloop; a 35# Delta _might_ do, as long as the bottom is sand rather than silt. But after much hand-wringing, I'm convinced a 25# NextGen will provide equal or better straight-line holding; quicker bury; better veer protection; less weight on the bow for improved sailing; and easier handling. Now a Danforth/Fortress style has even *better* holding power to weight, but its shortcomings in other areas are well documented. If sitting thru a hurricane, I'd still want a 30# Fortress out there as a storm backup -- hand-placed & given a couple days to burrow in.  For a self-launching everyday bower, the scoop-style NextGen are preferred.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Been sitting on the beach at white on jost reading practical sailor. They have a write up on mud anchoring such as auspicious encounters. My Rocna did TERRIBLY. Carry a Fortress. That design did better. 
Think your still stuck carrying two or three. A next gen, some derivative of a danforth and something to use off the stern.
Sure wish some thought was given to what to use instead of chain that had the good properties of chain and none of the bad properties of rope rode..


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Hey,

some of you forgot about my newer than an rock anchor, 2lbs coffee can with an eye bolt and concrete in it! or bigger tin can if you need a bit more weight........garbage can mebbee?!?!?!?

Marty


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

blt2ski said:


> Hey,
> 
> ............garbage can mebbee?!?!?!?
> 
> Marty


I bet we've all been on moorings with less.  A 50gal commercial garbage can, filled with concrete, would weight about 1,000 lbs.


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

Anchor debates will exist as long as mankind. But as the OP here, my argument is with the term "New Generation," which I say is a marketing ploy intended to imply that the debate is no longer valid. 

I personally don't use the term "New Generation," because it was an invention by an anchor maker for obviously self-serving reasons. I think a lot of designs are worthy, including the lightweight Fortress...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Pamlicotraveler said:


> Anchor debates will exist as long as mankind. But as the OP here, my argument is with the term "New Generation," which I say is a marketing ploy intended to imply that the debate is no longer valid.
> 
> I personally don't use the term "New Generation," because it was an invention by an anchor maker for obviously self-serving reasons. I think a lot of designs are worthy, including the lightweight Fortress...


I don't really agree. The Fortress is just an aluminum danforth. It's a great anchor, but it's not really new design.

The term I've seen used is Next-Gen, which fairly describes a few different versions (mostly different tips and shank angles) of the same new design (Rocna, Mantus, Manson S). There is an argument that they are a variant of the Spade, but I see them as a leap.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Here's some info. I found interesting and has convinced me to try one of the new gen anchors. I compared the fluke sizes and square inches of bearing surface of next gen anchors vs CQR and there is a wide difference in favor of the new anchors. These are rough estimates but the 40# Rocna has 274 sq. in of fluke surface, the 45# Manson S. has 166 sq. in., the Mantus has 261, THE CQR LESS THAN 140. This explains why, in the test mentioned above, it lost hold quicker than the new anchors. It has less friction surface. The angles of attack for Rocna and Manson are around 12-13 degrees, the Mantus 22 degrees (which may explain its quick set) and the CQR, 28 degrees. If these new anchors set quicker and hold more... well, sounds like a no-brainer.


----------



## vtsailguy (Aug 4, 2010)

On our tartan 41, we used to have a Bruce claw and a delta.

I am currently long term testing a mantis and a spade. I can honestedly say that there is night and day difference with these two anchors. When they set, there is a large noticeable jerk as they dig that the older two did not have. These newer anchors have held comfortably in constant 35 knot winds with no problems.

In fact, on that particular night in Guadeloupe, two boats dragged off into the deep water in the middle of the night....


----------



## Jiminri (Aug 26, 2012)

vtsailguy said:


> On our tartan 41, we used to have a Bruce claw and a delta.
> 
> I am currently long term testing a mantis and a spade. I can honestedly say that there is night and day difference with these two anchors. When they set, there is a large noticeable jerk as they dig that the older two did not have. These newer anchors have held comfortably in constant 35 knot winds with no problems.
> 
> In fact, on that particular night in Guadeloupe, two boats dragged off into the deep water in the middle of the night....


I will be very interested to hear your observations on (any) differences between the Mantus and Spade. (I bought a Mantus, but it does not fit well on my bow roller. The Spade, because it does not have the roll bar, may fit better.)


----------



## vtsailguy (Aug 4, 2010)

Jiminri said:


> I will be very interested to hear your observations on (any) differences between the Mantus and Spade. (I bought a Mantus, but it does not fit well on my bow roller. The Spade, because it does not have the roll bar, may fit better.)


I'll be making an extended post, we have just started using the spade.

The idea is that we used the mantis from Vermont to Dominica, and will be using the spade on the way back


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

Pamlicotraveler said:


> Anchor debates will exist as long as mankind. But as the OP here, my argument is with the term "New Generation," which I say is a marketing ploy intended to imply that the debate is no longer valid.
> 
> I personally don't use the term "New Generation," because it was an invention by an anchor maker for obviously self-serving reasons. I think a lot of designs are worthy, including the lightweight Fortress...


The phrase is Next Generation, and it's not intended to close debate because no one is calling them "Final Generation." The fisherman hook dates back a couple centuries. The CQR plow is early 1930s, the Danforth fluke style is 1940s.

Then a twenty five year gap. The plow/CQR and fluke (Danforth) consolidate their hold on the recreational anchor market. And for many people, they are good enuf -- tho their shortcomings are documented, there's nothing much happening on the design front to displace them.

Bruce (Claw) came along in the 70s, introducing the idea of ears and a concave 'scoop'. The Bugel anchor, with its roll bar, acute shank angle, and pointy tip came out in the early 1980s. Simpson/Lawrence Delta around the same time, which is really just a CQR with better shank geometry & proto-ears. Then Poiraud's Spade in the mid 90s, which combined the weighted tip of plows with the concave fluke of the Claw.

Then in 2004 Rocna combined the shank geometry of the Delta, the rollbar of the Bugel, and the concave fluke of the Spade (only larger area per pound) into a very good anchor design indeed; then the Smiths proceeded to accuse every other anchor designer of lying, or of ripping off their 'original' ideas.

Manson came out with their NextGen version, which favors the Spade; Mantus with theirs, which favors the Rocna. Rocna has now turned to copying the Manson (Rocna Fisherman's rock slot) and Spade (Vulcan) possibly as some kind of highly ironic gesture. Manson released the Boss, which tries to eliminate the rollbar while keeping the other NextGen benefits.

Anyhoo, OP is right that the break between newer and older anchor designs is not perfectly crisp; nor has design or technology advanced in the great leaps we associate with semiconductor products. That was indeed part of Rocna's disingenuous rants -- that they for years denied their anchor had any links to the fusty past, when any idiot could see the pedigree. They've toned that down a bit.

Point is, the so-called NextGen anchors have generally more surface area to weight, sharp (sometimes weighted) points for penetration of different substrates, and shank geometries/ears/rollbars to ensure optimal setting angle no matter how they land. These are *incremental* improvements of previous designs, but improvements still. It doesn't mean all older designs are suddenly so much scrap metal, like that raster TV you had. Rather that, if a person is going to spend, oh, $300 on an important safety item for the boat, rather better performance (in most cases) for the same or less money holds great appeal. 

I'm not expecting miracles. And the sellers shouldn't promise them. Just say, "These scoop anchors have built on past designs, addressing certain shortcomings in those designs, and they represent the state of the anchoring art. We hope you buy ours."


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Minnewaska said:


> I bet we've all been on moorings with less.  A 50gal commercial garbage can, filled with concrete, would weight about 1,000 lbs.


A mooring we used on Lk Washington was literally an old water heater filled with concrete. Our 21' trailer sailor did not move that chunk of an anchor! That was in the 70's and early 80's. Was still out there last summer!

Marty


----------



## Fortress Anchors (Jul 24, 2014)

Gents,

A few comments to the posts:

- Fortress models FX-37, FX-55, FX-85, and FX-125 are certified as "Super High Holding Power" (SHHP) anchors by DNV, one of the largest classification societies in the world. A copy can be found here: http://fortressanchors.com/downloads/DNV-SHHP-Certification.pdf

- While surface area is an important component to anchor performance, we learned firsthand during the Chesapeake Bay soft mud tests that the "effective fluke angle," which is the angle of attack that the fluke takes into the sea bottom, is vitally important as well.

One of the newest of the "new generation" anchors tested (there were 6 total) had a massive surface area compared to the others, and in turn, there was a high expectation aboard the 81-ft test boat that this anchor would perform extraordinarily well.

However, as pointed out by our consultant Bob Taylor, a retired US Navy soil mechanics and anchor design expert, the relatively flat fluke did not aggressively orient downward into the soft mud, and the anchor just basically slide along as it was being slowly pulled along, with minimal engagement.

- FWIW, two noted boating authors that I have met, Tom Neale and the late ES "Mack" Maloney (Chapmans), both used the CQR for decades and spoke well of it. Another key component of anchor performance is simply the knowledge of how to properly use it, and obviously they both knew their anchor well.

Safe anchoring,
Brian


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Fortress Anchors said:


> - FWIW, two noted boating authors that I have met, Tom Neale and the late ES "Mack" Maloney (Chapmans), both used the CQR for decades and spoke well of it. Another key component of anchor performance is simply the knowledge of how to properly use it, and obviously they both knew their anchor well.


True - the availability of better anchors doesn't make previous designs any worse than they have ever been. Newer isn't always better either. In the case of anchors, the newer designs are better - better at setting, better at holding, and better at resetting.


----------



## goat (Feb 23, 2014)

Fortress Anchors said:


> Gents,
> 
> A few comments to the posts:
> 
> ...


Posts like this one are the reason I'll always have a fortress as my stern/storm anchor. Although honestly, I'm ditching my CQR for a non rollbar "next gen" anchor.

goat


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

But if practical sailor is to be believed not better in loose mud. 
I love my Rocna. Would never go back. But in loose mud may pull up the chain and go with the line and chain rode with fortress on the end to a 10:1 scope. (5:1 is usually enough for the Rocna- go ~8-10:1 if over 25kts or big swell)
To date the fortress is a virgin. The Rocna is awesome in sand,even does well in grass or firm mud. Have used it twice in loose mud. Backed down and it dragged. Ended up picking up a mooring once and moving the other time. Now know why.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Ironically, when my spade begins to drag, which it often does, I toss over my 20-pound Danforth and the boat immediately comes to a screeching halt. I think if I could get it to fit on my bow sprit properly I would use the spade as a backup.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

I always liked the design of the CQR with the hinge which I suppose allowed the anchor to stay buried with wind shifts vs the fixed shank design which may cause the anchor to reset with quick wind shifts. I used a single 35 lb CQR during a cat 1 while aboard my 25000 lb displacement sailboat and it held during many violent wind shifts during the night. And while I had many successful times anchoring with that design. However there are a couple of spots I found on the Chesapeake where the anchor would drag with any stiff wind so I did break down some 6 years ago and replaced the CQR with a 45 lb Manson Supreme. The most wind experienced with that anchor was full gale conditions and there were no problems, but I often wondered how it would survive the wind shifts of a hurricane. Maybe the " next next generation" should incorporate that hinge design of the CQR with the concave shape of the Manson?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

lancelot9898 said:


> *I always liked the design of the CQR with the hinge which I suppose allowed the anchor to stay buried with wind shifts vs the fixed shank design which may cause the anchor to reset with quick wind shifts. * I used a single 35 lb CQR during a cat 1 while aboard my 25000 lb displacement sailboat and it held during many violent wind shifts during the night. And while I had many successful times anchoring with that design. However there are a couple of spots I found on the Chesapeake where the anchor would drag with any stiff wind so I did break down some 6 years ago and replaced the CQR with a 45 lb Manson Supreme. The most wind experienced with that anchor was full gale conditions and there were no problems, but I often wondered how it would survive the wind shifts of a hurricane. *Maybe the " next next generation" should incorporate that hinge design of the CQR with the concave shape of the Manson?*


I think that would probably be a very bad idea...;-)

The reason for the hinge on the CQR is commonly misunderstood, it has little to do with the handling of wind shifts after the anchor is set. Rather, it's what permits the tip of the plow to begin to dig into the seabed after being dragged for a bit, as when such an anchor firstl hits the bottom, it will simply fall over and lie on its side...



> Below is an excerpt from the original U.S. Patent application #1,974,933, filed 28 February 1934. Or in the inventors own words:
> 
> "The provision of the hinge between the two portions of the shank-which is an essential of the invention, ensures that in the first place, when the anchor falls on the ground or when drag is initially applied, the fluke will take up a position such that it will tend to dig into the ground. The hinge thereafter ensures the automatic righting action of the fluke and the maintenance of substantially stable conditions during the continuance of drag."


----------



## Jiminri (Aug 26, 2012)

travlineasy said:


> Ironically, when my spade begins to drag, which it often does, I toss over my 20-pound Danforth and the boat immediately comes to a screeching halt. I think if I could get it to fit on my bow sprit properly I would use the spade as a backup.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Gary


Hmmm... I had been considering "upgrading" to a Spade from my genuine Bruce. Maybe I need to reconsider. Although the Bruce has done well for me in the mud of the Chesapeake, the only place I've anchored, I've never anchored in incredibly high wind. My boat has a lot of windage and likes to "sail" at anchor, so I bought a Mantus to try, but unfortunately it does not sit well on the bow roller.


----------



## Noelex (Jan 23, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> The reason for the hinge on the CQR is commonly misunderstood, it has little to do with the handling of wind shifts after the anchor is set. Rather, it's what permits the tip of the plow to begin to dig into the seabed after being dragged for a bit, as when such an anchor firstl hits the bottom, it will simply fall over and lie on its side...


The real purpose of the hinge is to trap fingers .


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

What's the most attractive anchor? There's a new angle!

I say the danforth is just as ugly at the next-gen. CQR gets my vote. Sits nicely on the bow and looks like it has something going on with the hinge.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Think it's my wife.:laugher


----------



## Noelex (Jan 23, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> What's the most attractive anchor?


The Ultra is the most beautiful anchor by a long way.

Shame the owner could not pick a better sea bottom to drop it in, although it allowed me to take an underwater photo that shows off the design.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

So, we have a vote for the CQR, outbound's wife and the Ultra. 

I think most people accuse the next-gen anchors of being ugly (I do), but I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be a rush to declare what an attractive anchor looks like. 

So, outbound, was that a metaphor of your conscripted relationship to an attractive woman or do you shackle a couple of hundred feet of chain to her ankles and toss her overboard in the harbor?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> So, we have a vote for the CQR, outbound's wife and the Ultra.
> 
> I think most people accuse the next-gen anchors of being ugly (I do), but I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be a rush to declare what an attractive anchor looks like.


I've always liked the look of the Bruce and its various copies the best, and when they're made in stainless, I think they're pretty nice looking...










When done right, they can be fit onto the bow in a very unobtrusive fashion, which I think is one of the reasons they're often seen on large yachts...










The Delta, when done in stainless, can also look very good on the bows of many boats, especially more angular modern designs such as the Beneteau Sense line, Hanse, and so on...


----------



## knuterikt (Aug 7, 2006)

travlineasy said:


> Ironically, when my spade begins to drag, which it often does, I toss over my 20-pound Danforth and the boat immediately comes to a screeching halt. I think if I could get it to fit on my bow sprit properly I would use the spade as a backup.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Gary


You are comparing 20-pound Danforth to what (size/type of Spade)?

It would be strange if one type of anchor performed best on all types of bottom?

We switched from 15 kg Bruce to Spade(s)
The first Spade was a 100 A only 9 kg, it holds better than the Bruce.

The other is a Spade 100 S 20 kg, the added weight helps the anchor to dig in better when with harder bottoms (sand, see weed on top).

Both Spade's is better at digging in that the Bruce when the bottom is hard or covered in see weed. In soft mud the difference in digging in is not that big.

We use the 20 kg on the bow and the 9 kg aluminium on the stern, we have two anchor winches (bow and stern)

Spade seems to be a better all round anchor, than the Bruce.

Found this article about "Anchors - The New Generation" Anchors - The New Generation
Maybe "scoop anchors" is better than "New Generation Anchors" 


> With few exceptions such as the plow and maybe the Bügel, most of the new anchor designs would probably be better classified as *scoop anchors*. All seeming to exhibit the "single concave fluke" design.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

My spade weighs 42-pounds and it's on an all chain rode.

Gary


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> So, we have a vote for the CQR, outbound's wife and the Ultra.


Bulwagga! 








Kidding. There's nearly nothing right about that anchor. Agree the Bruce is cute, in a anthropomorphic-three-fingered-Disney-Mouse kind of way. Tho every time the engineer in me sees that acute shank dogleg, I cringe.

Thin mud is a known weakness of the Spade design, simply because its surface-area-to-weight is sacrificed to the weighted tip. It buries fine, but it hasn't got the fluke area to resist pulling thru. In firmer bottoms, its burying power pays higher dividends and its relative performance skyrockets. Danforth style anchors hold very well in slime because all of their weight is in the flukes, as square inches.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> I think most people accuse the next-gen anchors of being ugly (I do), but I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be a rush to declare what an attractive anchor looks like.


I own a Manson Supreme and have never given any thought as to whether it is ugly or pretty. Seems some must have a different use for their anchor in mind than I if its' appearance is a factor.


----------



## knuterikt (Aug 7, 2006)

travlineasy said:


> My spade weighs 42-pounds and it's on an all chain rode.
> 
> Gary


The closest to 42 lbs I cold find here is Spade Anchor Sizes 44 lbs Spade S 100 (same as I have)
The surface area of this is 1000cm2 = 155 square inches

Should have been fun to know same area for your Danforth.

Could you explain this a little bit more?


travlineasy said:


> Ironically, when my spade begins to drag, which it often does, I toss over my 20-pound Danforth and the boat immediately comes to a screeching halt. I think if I could get it to fit on my bow sprit properly I would use the spade as a backup.


When you start to drg on the Spade you set the Danforth also - so hanging on two anchors - sharing the load?


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Yep, I leave both anchors out when this happens - works for me, and they've only twisted badly one time, but I was still able to untangle them without too much difficulty. Now when I have to use both, I run one long and one short, which pretty much prevents the tangling problem. Yeah, they still tangle, but not as badly as when they are both out the same distance.

As for the surface area of the Danforth, I never took the time to measure it. The was listed as 44 pounds when it was purchased, but it really only weighed 42 pounds. I don't think anyone really checks the weight and just assumes that the same models all weight the same weight, which obviously wasn't the case. I don't believe two extra pounds would make a lot of difference in holding power, though.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## titustiger27 (Jan 17, 2013)

Pamlicotraveler said:


> Anchor debates will exist as long as mankind. But as the OP here, my argument is with the term "New Generation," which I say is a marketing ploy intended to imply that the debate is no longer valid.
> 
> I personally don't use the term "New Generation," because it was an invention by an anchor maker for obviously self-serving reasons. I think a lot of designs are worthy, including the lightweight Fortress...


If the new anchors are better, why is this still the most popular tattoo?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

It's actually this one.


----------



## titustiger27 (Jan 17, 2013)

still the traditional anchor


----------

