# Manson Anchor 45 or 60 lbs



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

This one is probably for Maine Sail...

I know that there are a few hundred threads about anchors on SN but I wish to ask a specific question, hope that is OK;

I am going to buy a new anchor for my Catalina 400 (40' boat 20,000 lbs or thereabouts). (current anchor is tiny...)

Manson recommends for the Supreme anchor:

40-45' boat = 45 lbs anchor ($431 @ defender)
45-55' boat = 60 lbs anchor ($600 @ defender)

*Should I stick with the 45 lbs or go with the 60 lbs?*

I will use the anchor primarily in the Chesapeake Bay and possibly east coast to Bahamas. 150' of 5/16 chain.

I would consider a Rocna but the sizing question would remain the same...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

What do you have on there right now?

Brian


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> What do you have on there right now?
> 
> Brian


I think it is a 35 lbs Delta. It looks small.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

I think most world cruisers would tell you to get the largest anchor that you can handle, however, my experience while more limited differs. I have a 37 foot heavy displacement sailboat here on the Cheaspeake and have anchored out maybe 30 times per year over the past 2 decades including a trip down the ICW to Florida and cruising LI Sound to Block Island using a 35 pound CQR. When a Cat 1 hurricane (Gloria) came up the Cheaspeake that was all I was using in a hurricane hole and the anchor held with me aboard. I don't think I'll do that again.  Recently I did upgrade to the 45 pound Manson Supreme and did ride out a couple of nights last fall under gale force winds gusting to 50 knots. It did fine and with more use I'm gaining more confidence. The CQR is fine except in soft mud where I think the newer designs will out perform. Never could get a good set with the CQR in horseshoe bend in St Mary's so anxious to try the Manson there. I also use a little heavier chain per foot than you ( 3/8 inch BBB) and that makes some difference, but during the hurricane I was most worried about chafe to the nylon line which looked like a banjo string. The line is spliced to the chain and I use 80 feet of chain with 200 feet of 5/8 inch line spliced to it. I forget what price I paid for the Supreme, but it was cheaper than the Defender price. It was one of the few times West Marine ever had them beat on price!


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

lancelot9898 said:


> I think most world cruisers would tell you to get the largest anchor that you can handle, however, my experience while more limited differs. I have a 37 foot heavy displacement sailboat here on the Cheaspeake and have anchored out maybe 30 times per year over the past 2 decades including a trip down the ICW to Florida and cruising LI Sound to Block Island using a 35 pound CQR. When a Cat 1 hurricane (Gloria) came up the Cheaspeake that was all I was using in a hurricane hole and the anchor held with me aboard. I don't think I'll do that again.  Recently I did upgrade to the 45 pound Manson Supreme and did ride out a couple of nights last fall under gale force winds gusting to 50 knots. It did fine and with more use I'm gaining more confidence. The CQR is fine except in soft mud where I think the newer designs will out perform. Never could get a good set with the CQR in horseshoe bend in St Mary's so anxious to try the Manson there. I also use a little heavier chain per foot than you ( 3/8 inch BBB) and that makes some difference, but during the hurricane I was most worried about chafe to the nylon line which looked like a banjo string. The line is spliced to the chain and I use 80 feet of chain with 200 feet of 5/8 inch line spliced to it. I forget what price I paid for the Supreme, but it was cheaper than the Defender price. It was one of the few times West Marine ever had them beat on price!


Lancelot,

Excellent advice.

I want a good size anchor but not overly big either. Seems that the 45 lbs might do the job.

I am sure that the Delta is an OK anchor but I have read many good things about the Manson and the Rocna and feel that a good anchor is one of the most important thing on the boat, we love to anchor out and I promised myself to buy the best anchor I can get my hands on.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

I'm using a 45# Manson on our boat, about the same size as your boat, for coastal cruising in good weather. It's great. When we shove off on our cruise, we'll probably get a 60#.

One thing you'll want to check is your anchor roller. The manson has a thick shank that doesn't fit too well in some of the stock rollers.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I love the Delta. Mine is a 44 and it fits very well on the roller. However, that anchor is probably accurately sized for our boat. I simply chose to have two anchors: One is a CQR, the other is an oversized Delta. The CQR is my lunch hook. It is on a line-rode with 25' of chain. It has NEVER drug (a sailor's last words... but I do not use it if it is going to be blowing). THe 44 lb delta is what I use if I am going to be somewhere a while or a storm is coming. It is all chain. 

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Also, make sure you check with Sailnet before purchasing and tell them you are an active member of the forum. Would love to give the business to them where we can.

Brian


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

If you're going to be going in areas where you'll be caught anchored out in storms, get the 60 lb. anchor. Long term cruising is going to require the heavier anchor, especially if you're trying to spend as little time in marinas as possible.

If you were going to stay in the Chesapeake, I'd say go with the 45 lb. anchor...but you say you're going out to the Bahamas and Caribbean, so I'd say go with the 60 lb. instead.

My reasoning for this is that your primary anchor should be sized to handle storms, not just heavy winds... Many times, you don't have sufficient warning to dig your "storm" anchor out of the bilge, attach it to a rode, and then set it, before the storm hits.



jorgenl said:


> This one is probably for Maine Sail...
> 
> I know that there are a few hundred threads about anchors on SN but I wish to ask a specific question, hope that is OK;
> 
> ...


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

Not sure I understand the trade-offs here. The added 15 pounds means a lot more capability and less worries=easier sleeping at night. What's the issue? Unless you don't have a windlass. Then the extra 15 pounds would mean something.

Or am I missing something here.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Bene505 said:


> Not sure I understand the trade-offs here. The added 15 pounds means a lot more capability and less worries=easier sleeping at night. What's the issue? Unless you don't have a windlass. Then the extra 15 pounds would mean something.
> 
> Or am I missing something here.


Bene,

I see your point but I don't want to go big just for the sake of going big.

or, at least I do not wan't to go redicilously big...

I've got a windlass but 15lbs extra at the bow is 15 lbs extra (ask Giu...)

$170 is 5 bottles of decent rum.


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

jorgenl said:


> Bene,
> 
> I see your point but I don't want to go big just for the sake of going big.
> 
> ...


Well, when you equate it to rum, that's just not fair. 

And Giu would have a carbon fiber anchor - he'd figure out how.

If you don't like the 15 pounds, cut off 15 pounds of the chain (or 17 to account for the extra distance of the bowsprit from the center of gravity of the boat. (Assuming you still have enough chain on there.) Replace the chain with extra nylon rode.

That siad, I agree with going with what you need.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

*15 lbs. on a 20,000 boat??? You're kidding, right??? *

The difference between the two anchors* is less than 0.1% of the weight of the boat.*.. it doesn't really mean SPIT.  A Catalina 400 outfitted for cruising is probably going to be closer to 25,000 lbs., so it probably isn't even 0.06% of the mass of the boat.

BTW, the cost difference, $170, is equally trivial when it comes to the price of the boat.* A 2002 Catalina 400 recently sold for $199,000... again... the cost differential is only 0.08% of the price of the boat...* and if it saves your boat in a storm... it'll probably be worth at least that much...

* Being penny-wise and pound-foolish on ground tackle is abysmally stupid IMHO.*


jorgenl said:


> Bene,
> 
> I see your point but I don't want to go big just for the sake of going big.
> 
> ...


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> *15 lbs. on a 20,000 boat??? You're kidding, right??? *
> 
> The difference between the two anchors* is less than 0.1% of the weight of the boat.*.. it doesn't really mean SPIT.  A Catalina 400 outfitted for cruising is probably going to be closer to 25,000 lbs., so it probably isn't even 0.06% of the mass of the boat.
> 
> ...


The additional weight of an oversized anchor may help one sleep better at night, but it may also be a pain in the a$$ to wrestle into a locker or the bilge while on long passages. At some point, an anchor gets too big to handle.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

True, but most boats spend more time at anchor than on passage... 


erps said:


> The additional weight of an oversized anchor may help one sleep better at night, but it may also be a pain in the a$$ to wrestle into a locker or the bilge while on long passages. At some point, an anchor gets too big to handle.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Interesting discussion, folks. I for one am mulling over these very decisions, although I don't have to make them final for a couple more years. Our 41' steel cutter is 30,000 lbs. light load, and might go 35,000 with full supplies and tankage. I can carry all sort of 3/8" BBB chain if I choose, but I currently have just a 45 lb. CQR, a 33 lb. Bruce "lunch hook" and a 45 lbs. Danforth.

I think I need to start at the 60 lb. Manson or Rocna and maybe consider 75.

I will have a manual/electric windlass and my back's in good shape, plus I expect to use the boat's inertia to break out the anchor after we take up the slack rode, but the question of "what's our everyday anchor going to be" plus "what is the _storm _anchor going to be?" is a real one. I'm getting the sense from Hal Roth that having five or so anchors on a passagemaker is about the minimum, and that I should just leave the Bruce hanging on the stern rail...just in case!


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

*A good Bargain!*

eBay Motors: NEW! Manson Supreme Anchor, 35 lbs, Super Holding Power (item 260374649232 end time Apr-08-09 06:43:53 PDT)


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

jorgenl said:


> I am going to buy a new anchor
> *Should I stick with the 45 lbs or go with the 60 lbs?*
> 
> ...


What will your windlass think?

Just seen on another sailing forum:

« _We've recently upgraded from a 22kg *** to a 33kg ***. When weighing anchor, the windlass gets the shank up to the bow-roller and then groans and strains._

Yachting and Boating World forums: Heavy Anchor - Inefficient Windlass?


----------



## lgherb (Jul 2, 2006)

I am surprised this discussion has not included any mention of the necessity of having multiple anchors to deploy in the event of degrading weather while at anchor. IMHO, going with the 45lb Manson and having other anchors on hand to set multiple anchor points is far more prudent than "going large" and carrying a single anchor.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> I would consider a Rocna but the sizing question would remain the same...


Jorgenl, just a brief note, have you studied the article on the Rocna Knowledge Base which outlines Rocna sizing philosophy in detail, in addition to the sizing chart?

If not I recommend it: www.rocna.com/kb/Rocna_sizing_recommendations

Together with our chart you can then make a more informed decision.

It should go without saying that IMHO the Manson version is not equitable with the genuine Rocna and our chart would *not *apply to it, despite the similarities in design, for numerous reasons that have been covered before. Anyway, I hope that's helpful.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I am not of fan of having to use multiple anchors. That said, I am a big advocate of having at least three anchors aboard. A primary, a secondary that can function as the primary in case you have to cut one free at some point, and a "lunch" hook. However, I feel the primary really needs to be sized so that your boat can ride out an unexpected storm without having to put out additional anchors.



lgherb said:


> I am surprised this discussion has not included any mention of the necessity of having multiple anchors to deploy in the event of degrading weather while at anchor. IMHO, going with the 45lb Manson and having other anchors on hand to set multiple anchor points is far more prudent than "going large" and carrying a single anchor.


----------



## genieskip (Jan 1, 2008)

My J40 is about the size of the OP's boat. I use a 44lb Spade as a working anchor. Yesterday I bought a 60 lb Manson as storm anchor #1 and already have a Fortress 37 as Storm anchor #2. Each has its own rode. I also carry a small Fortress as a lunch hook. As you can tell I agree with the poster who stated that he believed in having multiple anchors for different eventualities.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> *15 lbs. on a 20,000 boat??? You're kidding, right??? *
> 
> The difference between the two anchors* is less than 0.1% of the weight of the boat.*.. it doesn't really mean SPIT.  A Catalina 400 outfitted for cruising is probably going to be closer to 25,000 lbs., so it probably isn't even 0.06% of the mass of the boat.
> 
> ...


Dog,

Chill out man.

I may be a bit stupid but *abysmally *stupid?

I honestly do not care very much about what the cost of the anchor. I was trying to convey that in my OP. The boat cost me a fair chunk of change and I therefore intend to get a really good anchor, no matter what it costs. I think people (including me) spend a lot of money on gadgets that are not of primary importance to the boat (TV's, coffe makers, electronics blah blah) and then skimp on esentials like anchors.

ERPS had a good point and that is what I have been considering, at some point an anchor becomes unnecessarily large and a pain to handle.

Secondary anchor - absolutely. It has a 22 lbs danforth today. I will most likely buy a sizeable fortress aluminum anchor (good perfomance / weight ratio?) as a secondary anchor. Easy to stow.

So, Dawg, I am not trying to save pennies on anchors.

Windlass? I am 220 lbs pure viking muscle. 

Cheers from the abysmally stupid


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I AM CRYING HERE I AM LAUGHING SO HARD!!!! I AM NOT EXHAGERATTING, TEARS COMING DOWN. OHHHH.... THIS IS HILLARIOUS.... AND ONLY ON ANCHORNET (SAILNET I MEAN), CAN A POOR BA***** ASK ABOUT WHETHER HE SHOULD HAVE A 45 OR 60 LB MANSON OR WHATEVER, THEN GET WITHIN 24 HOURS 3-4 PAGES OF WHY IT IS RIGHT, WRONG, ABYSMALLY STUPID, AND THE FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTIES OF ANHORING IN ANTARCTICA WITH A CAT 6 HURRICANE BLOWING DOWN AND HOW MANY ANCHORS YOU SHOULD HAVE DOWN!!!

Ohhhh, sorry, I had to bring my secretary in here to read this. Thanks guys for the laugh. Whew. Maybe the real question he should ask is whether he should crimp it on or solder it, or if there is a better method???

Ok, now some facts:

A 400 loaded down will easily exceed 27,0000 lbs. Mine was pulled and I broke 27k, and not fully outfitted to go yet. SO you better use that number for comparisson. Don't look at the sheets Catalina prints. I think there is a, err, missprint.

As far as the anchor stuff goes, have one lunch hook that you can pull up by hand, and one storm anchor. Those are your choice, whether they be Rocna, Manson, Delta, or rope with rock attached. I oversized my Delta and appropriately sized a cqr. Maybe Craig should send me a Rocna and afterwards I will praise its wonderful abilities, till then I have been served fine with a delta and all chain (and I have rode out some serious storms, even once on a lee shore open to ocean... ask GentleBreeze who is my pops, he was there... all night long!!!!). I guess maybe a good anchor saves a stupid captain!!!!! That would be me, by the way!!!

Part of my hesitation with a Rocna style anchor is that my Delta has always held, and I have also had to cut an anchor and leave her to Davie Jones once. I am concerned that if I had $1000 Rocna sitting down there, I might have to throw Dog, Child, or wife in to go get it. When they refused, it might ruin my week instead of just my day!!! 

Ahhh, but I feel that Rocna, Manson, Delta, or CQR, appropriately sized, will probably serve the Captain of that fine Luxurious and Prestidgious yacht just fine for many years. I already told you what I would do.

HEHEHE!

Brian


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

CD,

I'm glad we can entertain your secretary


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

A 60-lb anchor should be chicken feed for 220 lbs. of pure viking muscle... and absymally stupid and viking muscle are kind of redundant, aren't they...   :laugher :laugher :laugher


jorgenl said:


> Windlass? I am 220 lbs pure viking muscle.
> 
> Cheers from the abysmally stupid


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Craig Smith said:


> Jorgenl, just a brief note, have you studied the article on the Rocna Knowledge Base which outlines Rocna sizing philosophy in detail, in addition to the sizing chart?
> 
> If not I recommend it: Rocna sizing recommendations (Rocna Knowledge Base)
> 
> ...


Craig,

Thanks for the advice. Most helpful.

So, according to the Rocna charts, for a 40' boat that weighs in at 27,000 lbs fully loaded with multiple BBQ's a Rocna 25 would be the correct answer?


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

If I "sized up" to 14m/20 tons, looks like I'd need is a Rocna 33 kg. 

Or its Manson equivalent. Goes without saying...


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> Craig,
> 
> Thanks for the advice. Most helpful.
> 
> So, according to the Rocna charts, for a 40' boat that weighs in at 27,000 lbs fully loaded with multiple BBQ's a Rocna 25 would be the correct answer?


Yes, the recommendation for that boat would be the Rocna 25 (55 lb), based on the standards outlined in that article.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Follow up.

I finaly decided on a Rocna 20 kg which is attached to 150' of 5/16 chain via shackle.

It fits pretty good on the Catalina 400 bow roller.

I tried the anchor for the first time during the Memorial weekend.

It launched just fine and set on the first attempt. Held fine in the < 5 kts of wind we exprienced  

Now, retrieval was somewhat difficult, the anchor came up fine, full of Chesapeake mud, but hung "up side down" and would not right itself easily to go into the roller. Had to nudge it quite a bit with a boat hook and nearly took a good chunk of fibre glass out of the bow.

Questions: 

- Would a swivel take care of this problem? (Rocna does not recommend swivels)

- Could it be all the mud on the anchor ( I do not yet have washdown system installed) that made the tip heavy, chenged the balance of the anchor and made it hard for it to "right itself?


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

It isn't that swivels aren't recommended per se, it's that they're suggested only if necessary. Anchor righting behavior on the roller can be one such need.

The mud on the fluke should if anything help with righting, not hurt. Not an issue.

Please refer here:
www.rocna.com/kb/Swivels

Also there might be something interesting here:
http://www.rocna.com/kb/Bow_roller_assembly_design


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

jorgenl said:


> Now, retrieval was somewhat difficult, the anchor came up fine, full of Chesapeake mud, but hung "up side down" and would not right itself easily to go into the roller. Had to nudge it quite a bit with a boat hook and nearly took a good chunk of fibre glass out of the bow.
> 
> ?


I have the 45 lb Manson Supreme and also experience the same problem with the retreival. Also considered the swivel, but concluded that this was merely putting a weak link into the whole system regardless of what the swivel people said. What I do is once the anchor is hanging off the bow upside down in most cases is to lift the chain off the bow roller so as to put some twist into it. I can then bring the anchor aboard right side up. I'm using a manual windless so I'm at the bow anyway, but if I had a electric windless and wanted to be at the helm then it would be a real pain in the ass.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Bene505 said:


> And Giu would have a carbon fiber anchor - he'd figure out how.


No, he'd have TWO carbon fibre anchors...in tandem!


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

lancelot9898 said:


> I'm using a manual windless so I'm at the bow anyway, but if I had a electric windless and wanted to be at the helm then it would be a real pain in the ass.


That's why I wanted manual AND electric. It's not just because I like the arm exercise...but because you are staring at that chain coming aboard and can sort out problems immediately that the faster but not always better electric option won't always permit.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

jorgenl said:


> Questions:
> - Would a swivel take care of this problem? (Rocna does not recommend swivels)
> - Could it be all the mud on the anchor ( I do not yet have washdown system installed) that made the tip heavy, chenged the balance of the anchor and made it hard for it to "right itself?


All anchors with a triangular fluke shape will come up on the bow roller up side down. This is due to a simple physical law « *the law of the lesser effort* » (_I'm very familiar with this one_  )

This is also the reason why flags are always flying in the direction of the wind!

When you retrieve your anchor, you boat is going forward and your anchor, like a flag, will orient itself with the anchor tip looking forward.

Try to leave your anchor just under the surface of the water and go slightly *BACKWARD*, your anchor will turn 180° , facing backward and then you can lift it on the right position...

- It's important to clean your anchor, if you try to anchor again with all the mud still attached to the fluke, you have no guaranty that your anchor will position itself in the setting position and dig in.

This problem of mud is typical to all *BSH* (_big stupid hoop_) anchors as, due to the presence of the « *roll bar* », the sea material is not allowed to run freely out of the fluke...

See on: evacuation of materials 

João


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

lancelot9898 said:


> I What I do is once the anchor is hanging off the bow upside down in most cases is to lift the chain off the bow roller so as to put some twist into it. I can then bring the anchor aboard right side up. I'm using a manual windless so I'm at the bow anyway, but if I had a electric windless and wanted to be at the helm then it would be a real pain in the ass.


Lancelot,

Good advice - I'll try that next time.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

ANCORALATINA said:


> - It's important to clean your anchor, if you try to anchor again with all the mud still attached to the fluke, you have no guaranty that your anchor will position itself in the setting position and dig in.


Yep, it was clean after about 20 buckets of salt water and a tired back.

Washdown system is prio 1.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

ANCORALATINA said:


> This problem of mud is typical to all *BSH* (_big stupid hoop_) anchors as, due to the presence of the « *roll bar* », the sea material is not allowed to run freely out of the fluke...
> 
> See on: evacuation of materials
> 
> João


Not so fast Alain/João! My Spades, BOTH of them, pick up about the same Earth as do my Manson Supreme and my Rocna do. So it really has little to do with the roll bar and more to do with the scoop shape. Your blanket assertions and name calling are getting old.

In full disclosure please answer these questions:

*Do you know Alain Poiraud?

Does Alain Poiraud do ANY work for your company?

Does Alain Poiraud have a vested interest, any financial backing or consultation to your company?

Why does your anchor look so much like the Oceane anchor, invented by Alain Poiraud, and is it not a very close copy of the Oceane?*

Your arguments and slander against your competitors sounds very, very, very much like Alain Poiraud the ex owner of Spade anchors. There is also some confirmation & speculation, on other forums, that Alain is somehow involved in your company.

Please be honest with us. We expect full disclosure of who you really are and what and who your company really is. Your (BSH) insults are getting tiresome just as Alain's did and just as Craig Smith's did. Craig seems to have cleaned up his game now it's time you do too and stop calling other products names.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> .


Who are you MainSail (_former Halekai 36)_ Are you affiliated with Rocna anchor and why are you making the same « *Witch shooting* » (or *ghost hunting*  ) that Craig does?

Is it because Rocna copied the Spade anchor that Craig is seeing Alain everywhere??

Are you there to make technical discussions or personal attack and slander against other people??

Does anybody be involved in anchors, not knowing Alain?? We have his book and we fully agree with most (_if not all_) his theories

The *Raya* anchor has been originally designed to replace the bad copies of Bruce that have more than 80% of the Brazilian market! 









Does the Raya anchor look like the Oceane anchor (_again an argument developed also on other forums by Craig_!!!) just because it has a fluke and a shank?? Or is it a copy of the Rocna without « roll bar » (BSH  )



Maine Sail said:


> Craig seems to have cleaned up his game now.


Why are you advocating for Craig?? Did you see the advert on the side saying that the Rocna was the winner of the Sail test 2006?? Is it that you call "cleane*d up*"??

*I didn't answer personnal attacks made by Craig and I will not more answer yours.* Let's talk technics and if you disagree with my comments, make yours and please don't make personnal attacks against the Nodari familly. We are a lot in Brazil and it is a well respected familly.

João Nodari


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Maine Sail is a well respected long time member of this forum. He is not affiliated with any anchor manufacturer, except as a customer. He owns a wide range of anchors, including the Rocna, the Manson Supreme, the Spade, and the CQR, among others. Attacking him as you have destroys any little credibility you may have previously had on this forum.

He is asking valid questions about who you are and what your affiliation with Alain Poiraud, if any, is. He's also got a good point about your incessant sniping at the BSH anchors.

As far as I can see, you've got no data that proves your anchor, works to any degree or can compete with the BSH anchors you denigrate. The Manson Supreme and the Rocna have both proven themselves as good anchors. The Raya has not as far as I can see... there's been basically no mention of the Raya anchor on the web or in the sailing media that isn't related to you or your company's press releases.

I didn't see Maine Sail attack anyone. I did see him ask for reasonable clarification of basic questions, especially given how similar and strident your complaints are to those voice by Alain Poiraud previously.



ANCORALATINA said:


> Who are you MainSail (_former Halekai 36)_ Are you affiliated with Rocna anchor and why are you making the same « *Witch shooting* » (or *ghost hunting*  ) that Craig does?
> 
> Is it because Rocna copied the Spade anchor that Craig is seeing Alain everywhere??
> 
> ...


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

*The BSH is the latest fashion for anchors*

*The BSH is the latest fashion for anchors,*

This idea is not new at all, patented by Peter Bruce (_patent number 3777695 - Dec 11 1973_) but Bruce never uses it (_what a clever man!  ) _
- The first commercially available BSH anchor was the German Bügel anchor before being copied by Rocna and others... 
-The only purpose of the BSH is to correct a wrong anchor design and to position the anchor in the right setting position.
-	Except this purpose the BSH has *no other advantage *but :
o	It add some weight on the wrong place, the back part of the fluke
o	It's a cumbersome accessory and a problem for storing the anchor (boats with a bow sprit) 
o	It can trap mud and weed making the anchor difficult to clean.



sailingdog said:


> As far as I can see, you've got no data that proves your anchor works to any degree or can compete with the BSH anchors you denigrate.


You are perfectly right! We are exactly in the position Rocna and others where a few years ago. 
- Like some manufacturers it will be very easy for us to publish *FAKE* videos showing (_in different grounds_) that our anchor works better than the old generation anchors (_avoiding comparison with others « New Gen » anchors_) or to publish *FAKE* comparative curves...

Be patient, *INDEPENDANT* tests are on the way and we will give you data.

Now, could you please tell exactly how the Raya anchor compare to the Oceane anchor???

João


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

As mentioned above, Mainesail is not affiliated with Rocna or anyone to the best of my knowedge. He is an outstanding contributor here.

We not only expect, we require, full disclosure on this site. Please list all your affiliations in the marine industry in your signature (in English).

Everybody stay civil please.

- CD


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Cruisingdad said:


> As mentioned above, Mainesail is not affiliated with Rocna or anyone to the best of my knowedge. He is an outstanding contributor here.
> 
> We not only expect, we require, full disclosure on this site. Please list all your affiliations in the marine industry in your signature (in English).
> 
> ...


I am absolutely 100% NOT affiliated with ANY manufacturer let alone Rocna. If you read many of my posts on anchoring I have been VERY, VERY critical of Craig Smith / Rocna over the years too.

Name calling of competing products detracts from any manufacturers credibility is absurd, rude and immature. The word "stupid" as in BSH is derogatory any way you look at it.

It seems fairly clear to me, based on my direct questions, and the utter lack of an answer or response that the Raya has more behind it than just the Nodari family..


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Maine Sail said:


> I am absolutely 100% NOT affiliated with ANY manufacturer let alone Rocna. If you read many of my posts on anchoring I have been VERY, VERY critical of Craig Smith / Rocna over the years too.
> 
> Name calling of competing products detracts from any manufacturers credibility is absurd, rude and immature. The word "stupid" as in BSH is derogatory any way you look at it.
> 
> It seems fairly clear to me, based on my direct questions, and the utter lack of an answer or response that the Raya has more behind it than just the Nodari family..


I am not real up to date on all his posts or the story here. I assume that story continues beyond Sailnet?

- CD


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

I never knew anchors was such as sensitive subject. Seems to be up there with gun ownership, gay marriage and supreme court judges


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> I never knew anchors was such as sensitive subject. Seems to be up there with gun ownership, gay marriage and supreme court judges


Er-Hmm... have you checked out the solder versus Crimp debate yet? I'm not sure Mainesail has made up his mind which one is better - why don't you ask him!!!!

HEHE!

- CD


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> Name calling of competing products detracts from any manufacturers credibility is absurd, rude and immature. The word "stupid" as in BSH is derogatory any way you look at it...


The word « stupid » only shows my opinion concerning a feature commune to (_at least_) four anchors

This in not an attempt to discredit a « manufacturer »: Manson, for example, is manufacturing very good anchors&#8230;

It is my understanding that forums are used to discuss technical features of nautical products. It is my own opinion that a « roll bar » is stupid, used as a "last feature" to solve a wrong anchor design.

Now, if I'm not allowed to give *FREELY *my opinion about anchor characteristics, I don't mind, Time will (rapidly) prove that I'm right 

João Nodari Affiliated with Ancora Latina manufacturer of anchors


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

How 'bout ASH = Abysmally Stupid Hoop?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

I thought ANY touting of ones own product or bashing anothers was forbidden here and that vendors were limited to answering questions asked about their product only.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

AncoraLatina-

I'd point out that the hoop serves a particular purpose on those anchors, and as such isn't stupid. It is part of the entire design, and real world experience and testing has found the "stupid hoop" designs to be far superior to the older, non-hoop designs.

If the hoop didn't serve the function it was intended to serve, then it might be stupid...but in the case of the Rocna and Manson Supreme, it seems to be quite effective.

Just because the Rocna and other hoop based anchors don't fit your idea of what makes a good anchor, it doesn't change the fact that the hoop designs are commonly accepted as the best performing anchors currently available. _Only an idiot would think that a successful, effective anchor design is stupid. _


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

sailingdog said:


> testing has found the "stupid hoop" designs to be far superior to the older, non-hoop designs.


Sorry Sailing dog, but can you prove that??

Up to my knowledge BSH anchors have only be tested 3 times
-	The first test done by Practical Sailor (April 2006) the winner was the XYZ anchor (no BSH) 
-	The second test done by SAIL magazine (dec 2006) the winner was the HYDROBUBBLE anchor (no BSH)
-	The last one done again by Practical Sailor , the winner was the Manson RAY anchor (Again no BSH)

Can you tell me which « *testing *» you are talking about??

João


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

ANCORALATINA said:


> *-The only purpose of the BSH is to correct a wrong anchor design and to position the anchor in the right setting position.
> -	Except this purpose the BSH has no other advantage but :
> o	It add some weight on the wrong place, the back part of the fluke
> o	It's a cumbersome accessory and a problem for storing the anchor (boats with a bow sprit)
> ...


*

I'm not sure if any of your points are valid. I have a Tayana 37 with bow sprit and the Manson Supreme stores perfectly on the roller there. Note that I have an outside roller on the end of the spirit whereas most Tayanas have the roller located differently. Secondly I have yet to see any mud brought up by the hoop and we have plently of mud here on the Cheaspeake Bay. And your initial point about the weight being in the wrong place is the most valid even though adding a couple of more pounds to the tip would not penetrate weeds any better to any significant degree IMHO.*


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

lancelot9898 said:


> I have yet to see any mud brought up by the hoop .


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

ANCORALATINA said:


>


Dude please get a clue! You post bogus data, stolen and poorly photo shopped photos (on other threads) and then target one of the best performing anchors in existence to grow your market share?

Here's a hint:

There is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more available market in going after the lesser performing anchors like the CQR, Delta, Bruce/Bruce Copies and Danforth style anchors then there will ever be attacking the Rocna or Manson Supreme. Attacking two of the best performing anchors many of us have ever seen or used is just BSM Big Stupid Marketing.

Do you actually think anyone will ever switch from a Manson supreme or a Rocna to a Raya? While it is possible the numbers are in the minute category because despite your spouting and drivel the roll bar anchors work and we have yet to see even one ounce of data on the Raya.

*You are rude, dishonest and a THIEF! That's right Ancora Latina has not only STOLEN copyrighted photos from me but also from others on other forums. He then uses these photos to bash the competition. He's a real up and up kind of guy. The photo of the Manson Supreme on the bow roller in THIS POST (LINK) is MY photo and was STOLEN from me without my express permission. I demand that my photo be removed from your photo bucket site immediately and that you cease using my STOLEN photo. The other anchor, photo shopped in next to it, is also STOLEN but not from me.*

Here's the evidence:

*This is MY copyrighted photo:*









*This is how Ancora Latina stole it, along with another stolen photo from Cruisers Forums, and Photoshopped and cropped it together:*









You are also not a very good businessman if this is how you plan on growing your business. Your anchor may just be a fine product but you will turn off more customers with your Alain Poiraud style before you get anywhere.

I fully expect that stolen photo to be removed ASAP!!!


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> I never knew anchors was such as sensitive subject. Seems to be up there with gun ownership, gay marriage and supreme court judges


Certainly sensitive if you're an embittered competitor posting on internet forums under an assumed identity, attacking any thread which so much as mentions certain names.

I think Alain has successfully managed to sabotage/hi-jack this thread at least, which is a pity given it started life as an innocent query regarding sizing. It seems to be his strategy to make such an attempt at disparagement if at all possible. Mud sticks etc (get it?). And regarding the _nom de plume_, deny-deny-deny.

Back-story for the uninitiated: Alain Poiraud is designer of the Spade and Sword anchors (website: Ancre Spade Sword Skrew - Ancres haute performance -), now sold to a Tunisian / French company. The Sword is a budget version of the Spade, and has gone through a number of re-design and re-branding iterations. Alain is now living in Brazil, has built a house there, and is producing a third (fourth?) refinement of the Sword, calling it the "Raya".

~

Jorgen do post some open and honest feedback on your anchor once you feel like you have some experience with it, ultimately it is boaters like you that count.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'm actually not surprised that AncoraLatina has resorted to stealing photos without attribution or credit. It is probably in line with his limited marketing budget that he has to do such things.



Maine Sail said:


> Dude please get a clue! You post bogus data, stolen and poorly photo shopped photos (on other threads) and then target one of the best performing anchors in existence to grow your market share?
> 
> Here's a hint:
> 
> ...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd also point out that Ancoralatina did a great job of not answering any of the hard questions asked in the *thread Maine Sail linked to*, where it is first pointed out that he stole the photos in question.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

ANCORALATINA said:


> All anchors with a triangular fluke shape will come up on the bow roller up side down. This is due to a simple physical law « *the law of the lesser effort* » (_I'm very familiar with this one_  )
> 
> This is also the reason why flags are always flying in the direction of the wind!
> 
> ...


It's very interesting to see how a very neutral *TECHNICAL* answer can turn into a *PERSONAL* Lynching!.. :hothead

Hey Guys! Are you American!!!.. 

João


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Personal Lynching?*



ANCORALATINA said:


> It's very interesting to see how a very neutral *TECHNICAL* answer can turn into a *PERSONAL* Lynching!.. :hothead
> 
> Hey Guys! Are you American!!!..
> 
> João


Your post was technical UNTIL you attacked a competitor and made a FALSE and bogus claim top slkam your competition.



ANCORALATINA said:


> This problem of mud is typical to all *BSH* (_big stupid hoop_) anchors as, due to the presence of the « *roll bar* », the sea material is not allowed to run freely out of the fluke...


*FACT (based on my own personal use):* I own two Spades which are also "scoop" anchors. *FACT (based on my own personal use)*: They pick up a similar amount of bottom to both my Manson Supreme and my Rocna. Claiming that anchors picking up mud is caused by the roll bar is ridiculous because the Spade's DO NOT have a rolld bar and pick up similar real estate. Scoop anchors ALL tend to pick up more mud. Is there a potential for the roll bar to trap some mud? Sure, but it has not been a probelm for me any more than it was on my Spade's and I have well over 200 anchorings between my Manson Supreme and my Rocna and I used a Spade for a similar amount of anchorings.

Please keep in mind I DO have experience with the anchors I discuss perfomance on. These are all my anchors and I still currently own every one of them. I have also owned a Delta but sold it with the last boat.









Personal lynching? You come on here calling other products "stupid", made bogus claims, and are a manufacturer yourself who feels it necessary to market your own product through bashing the competition.

*You also STOLE copyrighted photos and were asked a LONG time ago (4/14/2009 to be exact) to address this and have flat out done NOTHING.* *You did not even address my request to REMOVE MY STOLEN PHOTO FROM YOUR PHOTO BUCKET** site in your last post.*

You are a thief and due to your refusal to remove my STOLEN copyrighted photograph or address the theft of my image you will be dealt with.

You are the one lynching your competitors or lamely attempting to discredit them. Stick with what you know best and that is your OWN product.

If my photo is not removed within 12 hours from your site there will be consequences. I sell my photos and it is part of my personal income. I do not come to your factory and steal product from you.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> REMOVE MY STOLEN PHOTO FROM YOUR PHOTO BUCKET[/B]
> .


I apologize, I didn't use your photo, but I took only a small part of it!

Your photo is removed, I have replaced it by a hand made drawing::laugher










Now, could we stop *PERSONAL* attacks and come back to *TECHNICAL* talks??

João


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

ANCORALATINA said:


> I apologize, I didn't use your photo, but I took only a small part of it!
> 
> Your photo is removed, I have replaced it by a hand made drawing::laugher
> 
> ...


Stealing ANY portion of a copyrighted piece of work is illegal. I appreciate you removing my photo but the bent anchor photo was also stolen unless you can show express permission.\

I would welcome "technical" talks but you only care to "attack" & bash your competition and resort to presenting bogus claims and name calling..


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Just curious, how do you not use his photo when you take a small part of it??? Theft of a portion of a copyrighted work is still theft.

If you look at what has been written in this and the other threads you participate in, no one has attacked you personally. To attack you personally would require calling you something that is insulting. BTW, IMHO, Maine Sail's use of the word THIEF is not an attack but an accurate description, given the facts of the matter.

What is being objected to is your constant insulting and attacking of other manufacturers products and designs. If your anchor is so superior, it should be able to stand on its own merits. It doesn't... so you attack the anchors that currently are recognized as being among the best available.

While I don't own the wide variety of anchors that Maine Sail does, and by my count I see a Rocna, two Spades (one steel, one aluminum IIRC), a Bruce, a CQR, a Claw, a Manson Supreme, another CQR and a Fortress, I have used many different makes and models of anchor.

In my experience, the Rocna is clearly far better than any other anchor I have used. Granted, I've never used a Bulwagga-which IMHO presents extreme stowage problems and has a single point of failure where the stock joins the three flukes; or an XYZ-which also has stowage issues; or a hydrobubble-which seems a bit gimmicky to me, since the plastic bubble could be damaged and that would probably affect its ability to set...but having flotation on an anchor strikes me as counter-productive.

If you'd like to resume a technical discussion of anchors, please do so by talking about your anchor and not attacking other designs. Otherwise, I will be forced to ask the mods to intervene. Attacking other designs is not allowed AFAIK given your relationship to the Raya anchor.



ANCORALATINA said:


> I apologize, I didn't use your photo, but I took only a small part of it!
> 
> Your photo is removed, I have replaced it by a hand made drawing::laugher
> 
> ...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Just for the record, it appears obvious that you took Mainesails photo(s). I find that very dissapointing for someone that is developing and promoting a product. It dissuades from any argument(s) you are making on the benefits of your product. 

- CD


----------



## Noelex (Jan 23, 2008)

I do not want to enter into the argument one way or the other.The Photo of the bent Manson Supreme is mine. If anyone would like to use it all they have to do is ask and if they ask nicely I can send them a higher resolution image.
With any discussion, even if I disagree with the content, maybe we can convince more people to get a new generation anchor and they might stop dragging into me in the middle of the night.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

noelex77 said:


> I do not want to enter into the argument one way or the other.The Photo of the bent Manson Supreme is mine. If anyone would like to use it all they have to do is ask and if they ask nicely I can send them a higher resolution image.
> With any discussion, even if I disagree with the content, maybe we can convince more people to get a new generation anchor and they might stop dragging into me in the middle of the night.


HEHE!

Nice post. Post your pic of the high resolution here, if you do not mind.

- CD


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

CD...are you going to remove AL's recent posts...all of which are in violation of the vendor posting policy here? 
Or are there new rules?


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

noelex77 said:


> With any discussion, even if I disagree with the content, maybe we can convince more people to get a new generation anchor and they might stop dragging into me in the middle of the night.


Amen to that, and I respectfully include Ancora Latina's new gen anchor, the Raya, despite his childish and misleading forum behavior!!


----------



## Noelex (Jan 23, 2008)

Cruisingdad said:


> HEHE!
> 
> Nice post. Post your pic of the high resolution here, if you do not mind.
> 
> - CD


The original post was:

Here are some photos of the Manson supreme. 
Note from the photo the anchors galvanizing is in a poor state which surprised me given that the anchor cannot be very old and most yachts in this part of the world spend months on the hard where I would have expected rain to provide a good freshwater rinse.
The anchor was on a Bavaria 39.
Please bear in mind that all anchors will bend in certain circumstances. There are photos on the web of CQR anchors, which are regarded as one of the stronger designs, with a bent shanks. 
I have no idea how this one was bent. Many people on this forum have reported excellent results with this anchor and this is the first instance, to my knowledge, that anyone has reported any practical durability problems

I have several photos. The file size is about 4Mb on each of them so they are too large to publish, but here is one that is I think about as large as Sailnet allows


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> CD...are you going to remove AL's recent posts...all of which are in violation of the vendor posting policy here?
> Or are there new rules?


In most instances, yes. But in this instance I feel it better to leave his information up so that others can review his antics and copyright infringement. I feel that is the best service for the forum versus removing all trace of them.

- CD


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

noelex77 said:


> The original post was:
> 
> Here are some photos of the Manson supreme.
> Note from the photo the anchors galvanizing is in a poor state which surprised me given that the anchor cannot be very old and most yachts in this part of the world spend months on the hard where I would have expected rain to provide a good freshwater rinse.
> ...


Thanks.

- CD


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Wow. This went down faster than a Rocna chained to a Manson.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

That's because both are big stupid hoop anchors. 


Valiente said:


> Wow. This went down faster than a Rocna chained to a Manson.


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

So after reading all this I do know one thing, I will not be buying anything from ancora latina.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

And why is that???


denby said:


> So after reading all this I do know one thing, I will not be buying anything from ancora latina.


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> And why is that???


Can't trust anyone who is not honest, so I don't buy from them.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

denby said:


> So after reading all this I do know one thing, I will not be buying anything from Ancora Latina.


LOL&#8230; LOL&#8230; LOL&#8230; LOL&#8230; 

I already can't stop laughing, thinking of you fighting with your anchor coming up side down *full of MUD* and trying hard to get rid of all that mud - on your anchor - on your foredeck - and on yourself 

Are you sure you will do the good choice??

An *too honest* man!

João


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

João,

Will you show us some tests, or even testimonials instead of just making a bigger fool of yourself.
I would also like to know if you had anything to do with the Spade Anchor, as someone here has alluded to.

Thanks.

/Joms



ANCORALATINA said:


> LOL&#8230; LOL&#8230; LOL&#8230; LOL&#8230;
> 
> I already can't stop laughing, thinking of you fighting with your anchor coming up side down *full of MUD* and trying hard to get rid of all that mud - on your anchor - on your foredeck - and on yourself
> 
> ...


----------



## imagine2frolic (Aug 7, 2008)

A L,

You show a very unlikable side to your ways of practice, and then you want to ridicule a person for not trusting you? I do believe the laughter goes the other way, and I second the motion for never purchasing anything from you.....WHOEVER you might be......BEST WISHES in finding some better business practices, because this thread will follow you for a very long time........i2f


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Ditto. WHO one buys from is as important as WHAT one buys. A-L has done immense harm to his prospects here.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

*You should also all be honest!*

I came to this thread to give an explanation why anchors are often coming up side down. And you should think about my explanation... 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgenl 
Questions: 
- Would a swivel take care of this problem? (Rocna does not recommend swivels)
- Could it be all the mud on the anchor ( I do not yet have washdown system installed) that made the tip heavy, changed the balance of the anchor and made it hard for it to "right itself?

All anchors with a triangular fluke shape will come up on the bow roller up side down. This is due to a simple physical law « the law of the lesser effort » (I'm very familiar with this one )

This is also the reason why flags are always flying in the direction of the wind!

When you retrieve your anchor, you boat is going forward and your anchor, like a flag, will orient itself with the anchor tip looking forward.

Try to leave your anchor just under the surface of the water and go slightly BACKWARD, your anchor will turn 180°, facing backward and then you can lift it on the right position...

- It's important to clean your anchor, if you try to anchor again with all the mud still attached to the fluke, you have no guaranty that your anchor will position itself in the setting position and dig in.

This problem of mud is typical to all BSH (big stupid hoop) anchors as, due to the presence of the « roll bar »; the sea material is not allowed to run freely out of the fluke...

João
__________________
Ancora Latina

Yes, I did also try to explain why a "*roll bar*" is keeping mud on anchors blade...

Only because I call "roll bar" = "BSH" !!! (_on page 4_) then it starts *FOUR *pages of personal attacks!!! Four pages for three small letters... Nobody to thanks me for the explanation??

I'm sorry but *we have a completely different way of thinking on this side of the world!.. *

It's very interesting to see how a very neutral TECHNICAL answer can turn into a PERSONAL Lynching!.. 

If somebody is dishonest, sorry but it's not me!..



JomsViking said:


> João I would also like to know if you had anything to do with the Spade Anchor, as someone here has alluded to.


Somebody can be named, it is a (_honest?) _competitor!.. (_guess! and why?? is he doing that_?) and this point has been copied *WORD FOR WORD* by someone else well known on this forum! (For *WHAT* (_honest_) purpose?)

No, Ancora Latina has absolutely *NO *connection with SPADE anchor and the RAYA anchor is much more different from the Oceane anchor than some other « roll bar » anchors!! (_guess!)_

I will be more than pleased if someone from the forum can explain me what are the similitude between the two anchors?? (_competitors are welcome_!  )

I'm not honest?? What *CRIME *did I do??

- Is it because I don't agree with the principle of the « roll bar »

- Is it because I don't agree when someone says « *TESTING* has found the "stupid hoop" designs to be far superior to the older, non-hoop designs"

Is it because I don't agree when a competitor publish *FAKE modified curves *and *false assumptions* (_honest_?)

Is it because I took a small part of a photo? Yes I agree, *it has been a mistake*, but I didn't think it was such a *BIG CRIME *(_many Thanks Noelex77 for your kind authorization to use yours_)

- Or is it a more deeper reason?? *because I'm not American*?? but only *a poor Brazilian*!

- Is it because my English is not as good as yours (_but I speak fluently *four* other foreign languages_!..)

- Is it a question of *RACISM*?

Or *WHY*??

Sorry, but I don't feel guilty at all and I hope that you will not feel guilty too considering your way of making always the same *personal attacks*.

You don't want to buy my anchors?? This is not a real problem for me... the World is big, we are 180,000,000 Brazilians with a rapidly growing nautical market...  (_and no crise_!)

*And be sure I will now refrain to give technical answers on a subject that I know more than nearly all of you!.. *

Ciao...

João


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

ANCORALATINA said:


> LOL&#8230; LOL&#8230; LOL&#8230; LOL&#8230;
> 
> I already can't stop laughing, thinking of you fighting with your anchor coming up side down *full of MUD* and trying hard to get rid of all that mud - on your anchor - on your foredeck - and on yourself
> 
> ...


I have absolutely no problems with my anchor. It has held my boat and a friends boat rafted together in 25k winds with no trouble at all. But thank you for reinforcing my thoughts of you.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

ANCORALATINA said:


> I came to this thread to give an explanation why anchors are often coming up side down. And you should think about my explanation...
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by jorgenl
> ...


Actually, my Rocna sits quite nicely on the bow roller. The real reason there is always mud on the Rocna has a lot more to do with the scoop like shape than the roll bar.



> Yes, I did also try to explain why a "*roll bar*" is keeping mud on anchors blade...
> 
> Only because I call "roll bar" = "BSH" !!! (_on page 4_) then it starts *FOUR *pages of personal attacks!!! Four pages for three small letters... Nobody to thanks me for the explanation??
> 
> ...


This wasn't a technical answer, it was clearly an attack on a competing brand. Calling the roll bar a Big Stupid Hoop, when it clearly serves a purpose on the anchor and the anchor would not work properly without it says that it is not a stupid hoop, but an integral part of the design. Just because your design doesn't use one, doesn't make the Rocna's or Manson Supreme's design defective or stupid by default.



> If somebody is dishonest, sorry but it's not me!..


Exactly who is the one stealing other people's photos and representing them as their own work...that's dishonest...and basically what you've been doing for quite some time.



> Somebody can be named, it is a (_honest?) _competitor!.. (_guess! and why?? is he doing that_?) and this point has been copied *WORD FOR WORD* by someone else well known on this forum! (For *WHAT* (_honest_) purpose?)
> 
> No, Ancora Latina has absolutely *NO *connection with SPADE anchor and the RAYA anchor is much more different from the Oceane anchor than some other « roll bar » anchors!! (_guess!)_
> 
> ...


Stealing the intellectual property of others is clearly a problem, and one that you had no real issue with doing.... That says a lot about what kind of person you are and what your moral and ethical values are.



> - Or is it a more deeper reason?? *because I'm not American*?? but only *a poor Brazilian*!
> 
> - Is it because my English is not as good as yours (_but I speak fluently *four* other foreign languages_!..)
> 
> ...


Trust me, it isn't racism or the fact that you're a foreigner or that you're Brazilian that is the problem. The problem is your attitude, you lack of respect for the rules of the forum, your constant attacks on your competitors, and your lack of presenting any real answers to the questions posed to you. For instance, your website says that your anchors are 1/3-1/2 the weight of anchors with comparable holding power. Yet, the anchor you say is the equivalent of the 15 kg Rocna I have has over 20% less surface area. How can that be comparable holding power???



> Sorry, but I don't feel guilty at all and I hope that you will not feel guilty too considering your way of making always the same *personal attacks*.
> 
> You don't want to buy my anchors?? This is not a real problem for me... the World is big, we are 180,000,000 Brazilians with a rapidly growing nautical market...  (_and no crise_!)
> 
> ...


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

ANCORALATINA said:


> I came to this thread to give an explanation why anchors are often coming up side down. And you should think about my explanation...


No you did not, you clearly intended to seize on an opportunity to attack your primary competitor, on no basis whatsoever. The query you mentioned related to swivels and anchor behavior on rollers, which I believe I succinctly answered myself. Jorgen has not participated in the discussion further, so I presume that either he is satisfied with this response, or has been scared off by the subsequent antics. Perhaps hi-jacking threads in such a manner is exactly your intent.



ANCORALATINA said:


> All anchors with a triangular fluke shape will come up on the bow roller up side down. This is due to a simple physical law « the law of the lesser effort » (I'm very familiar with this one )


You know that this is rubbish also. How an anchor returns to the bow has much more to do with the rode than anything else, unless the entire rode is rope and the anchor is on a swivel, AND the boat is moving through the water when the anchor is being lifted. The solution to Jorgen's question relates to what his rode make-up is, and swivels. Your response is disingenuous and clearly intended to disparage your competitor.



ANCORALATINA said:


> No, Ancora Latina has absolutely *NO *connection with SPADE anchor and the RAYA anchor is much more different from the Oceane anchor than some other « roll bar » anchors!! (_guess!)_


Ancora Latina has no connection with Spade - other than the fact that Alain Poiraud is the Raya's proprietor, and the Raya is little more than a new version of the Sword. Your agreement with the new owners of Spade whereby you are not supposed to have anything more to do with anchors, not to mention infringing your own patent for the Sword now sold to them, wouldn't have anything to do with this policy of concealment, misinformation, and lies would it?

We know for a fact that Alain is behind the Raya. While João Nodari might exist - we know that the Nodari name has something to do with Alain's family - here João is nothing more than a proxy for Alain.


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

> - Or is it a more deeper reason?? *because I'm not American*?? but only *a poor Brazilian*!


I'm not American either. But still find that you seem to be dishonest. How can that be racism? Also I have friends all over the world, including Brazil.



> *And be sure I will now refrain to give technical answers on a subject that I know more than nearly all of you!.. *


That must mean you're leaving Sailnet, the idea of participating in a forum is to help others with the expertice or experiences you have?
Besides that, it seems that you have never given any TECHNICAL answers, but just semi-scientific BS to scare people away from other anchors.



> No, Ancora Latina has absolutely NO connection with SPADE anchor and the RAYA anchor is much more different from the Oceane anchor than some other « roll bar » anchors!! (guess!)


So IF the competition (and I'm smart enough to realize that Craig is a little biased) is right, we can all officially call you a liar?
I don't care about the technicalities of forming another company and/or if you're just someone acting as a proxy, it is still lying to me..?
You also did NOT answer my first question/request: Show us some tests and testimonials. That would get us back on the track of discussing anchors and anchoring?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Well said Joms.


----------



## scottyt (Jul 19, 2008)

hey AL if you want pm me and i will send you my address and you can send me an anchor. i will try it out on the chessy, and report on it. but you pay for the anchor and shipping. i would find sandy soil and mud, and pull against it with a winch to see if it holds better than a 17 lb and a 33 lb dansforth.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Wow..*



ANCORALATINA said:


> If somebody is dishonest, sorry but it's not me!..
> 
> _*No, Ancora Latina has absolutely NO connection with SPADE anchor*_ and the RAYA anchor is much more different from the Oceane anchor than some other « roll bar » anchors!! (_guess!)_


Let's review the questions asked of you earlier in this thread:

_*"In full disclosure please answer these questions:

*_ *Do you know Alain Poiraud?

Does Alain Poiraud do ANY work for your company?

Does Alain Poiraud have a vested interest, any financial backing or consultation to your company?"

*You answered:



ANCORALATINA said:


> *Ancora Latina has absolutely NO connection with SPADE anchor*


I leave it up to the forum members to decide how misleading that answer is. The questions had NOTHING to do with Spade and only Spades inventor Alain Poiraud who sold the Spade company.

You know for a fact that Alain sold the Spade company so it is very easy for you to SPIN the questions asked, as you did, to make it appear that you have no connection to Spade, which is true, but of course you know darn well that was NOT the question asked. This is called dodging the question!!!!



ANCORALATINA said:


> I'm not honest?? What *CRIME *did I do??


Let's see you have intentionally mislead forum members, especially with answers like you gave above, inappropriately attacked another manufacturer calling their design "stupid", stolen copyrighted photos to use to market your own product and then ignored a request to stop using them for well over 6 weeks.



ANCORALATINA said:


> - Is it because I don't agree with the principle of the « roll bar »


No, it has nothing to do with that at all. If you had politely referred to it as a roll bar and not a "big stupid hoop" we would not be in this mess. It is your sheer lack of manners and disrespect for the forum guidelines that pout you here.



ANCORALATINA said:


> Is it because I took a small part of a photo? Yes I agree, *it has been a mistake*, but I didn't think it was such a *BIG CRIME *(_many Thanks Noelex77 for your kind authorization to use yours_)


Perhaps not a crime to you but please remember that I asked you to stop using that photo back in April and you ignored my request. Perhaps if I now come to your factory and steal some stamped anchor flukes (only part of the anchor) you would not consider that stealing??



ANCORALATINA said:


> - Or is it a more deeper reason?? *because I'm not American*?? but only *a poor Brazilian*!
> 
> - Is it because my English is not as good as yours (_but I speak fluently *four* other foreign languages_!..)
> 
> - Is it a question of *RACISM*?


Wow you are really stretching and grasping for air on this one. Racism? I for one have a daughter who is Guatemalan and my sister was born in Bogota Colombia. I am the farthest thing from a racist. I know a few folks in this thread who are not even from the US and one US poster who would be considered a minority in the US. Your comments above are insulting, rude and show an utter disrespect to folks you don't even know.



ANCORALATINA said:


> Or *WHY*??


Because you have been rude, insulting, misleading and have stolen copyrighted material for your own personal gain.



ANCORALATINA said:


> Sorry, but I don't feel guilty at all and I hope that you will not feel guilty too considering your way of making always the same *personal attacks*.


I have yet to see any personal attacks. We asked you nicely back in April to stop using derogatory terms when discussing your competitors, and to remove stolen copyrighted material. You came back to this thread name calling and had not yet addressed the theft of coppyrighted material.

I for one have NEVER made a personal attack on you that was not factually based. I called you a thief because you stole copyrighted material from me. In this country, and most for that matter, what you did fits that definition. I called you dishonest & misleading because you refuse to answer direct and specific questions and you intentionally tried to mislead folks into believing that only BSH anchors trap mud when you & I know darn well that the Spade also does, and it does not have a roll bar.



ANCORALATINA said:


> You don't want to buy my anchors?? This is not a real problem for me... the World is big, we are 180,000,000 Brazilians with a rapidly growing nautical market...  (_and no crise_!)


As I have said before it has nothing to do with your product. In fact I tend to believe your anchor might actually be a good performer. The problem is you and your derogatory and insulting behavior not your product. It's too bad you are going to get in the way of a your own product and ruin a potentially good market with your continued antics...



ANCORALATINA said:


> *And be sure I will now refrain to give technical answers on a subject that I know more than nearly all of you!.. *
> 
> Ciao...
> 
> João


This might be a good choice until you address your net etiquette / forum behavior issues.

P.S. This was sent from the boat where I currently swing to my Rocna 33...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

LOL... nice riposte Maine Sail... are you using wifi or an aircard????


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Folks,

My sense is everyone has had a chance to make their points with respect to ancoralatina's approach to marketing.

Here's my attempt to shift the discussion a bit:



jorgenl said:


> Follow up.
> 
> I finaly decided on a Rocna 20 kg which is attached to 150' of 5/16 chain via shackle.....
> 
> ...


My experience with other kinds of anchors (not Rocna) is that orientation of the twist in rode and chain as it comes over the roller has the greatest affect on the final orientation of the anchor. If it does come up facing the wrong way, it's usually a question of simply un/twisting the rode a bit to re-orient it.

As for all that mud... Last weekend we were out on the Chesapeake. A boat adjacent to us in the anchorage weighed first and I had a very good opportunity to view this problem firsthand. I do not know which model Rocna or Manson they were using, but it appeared to be the next larger size to the 15kg -- so probably the same one jorgen is using.

I have never in my life seen SO MUCH MUD come up with an anchor. Not even on a Danforth style. It was a godawful MESS to behold -- honestly, it was appalling. The amount of mud that came up probably doubled or tripled the weight of the anchor.

We hoist our 25 and 35 lb anchors without a windlass. I am reasonably confident that were we to replace either of these with a Rocna-style, we would need both a windlass and a washdown pump. So, while I am impressed with reports of holding power, I can't say I'm inclined to make the switch given the likely cascade effect.

I also want to mention that I do not think an anchor design that brings up that much mud is a good choice for the Chesapeake region. Here we are fortunate to have good holding in thick but penetrable mud. There are many choices that offer good holding but that do not bring so much of that mud back up on retrieval.

Based on testimonials posted here on Sailnet, I have joked in the past that if the EPA saw the mess inflicted by one of these anchors -- they might just ban them. I was only kidding at the time. Having seen it firsthand -- now I'm not so sure!! 

P.S. I do not think the mud issue has anything to do with the roll bar. It appears to be the concave shape of the anchor design.


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

My Bruce tends to bring up a lot of mud too, but that anchor also has a shape that are somewhat concave. I also have a Spade, but don't really remember how much mud that brings up, as we're using the Bruce most of the time. Must test 



> P.S. I do not think the mud issue has anything to do with the roll bar. It appears to be the concave shape of the anchor design.


----------



## Noelex (Jan 23, 2008)

I disagree with much of what ANCORALATINA says, but I still feel the forum can benifit from comments made by someone that has designed anchors. Lets try and channel that knowledge so we can all benifit.
Anchor designers believe their anchor is the best in the world and cannpt understand why everybody does not agree with them. That passion is understandable, but has has led to some poorly judged comments from several anchor manufacturers. I believe their bias is worth tolerating for the technical knowledge they posses (and sometime just for the sheer entertainment value)
There is no racism is any of the comments against ANCORALATINA, but it is easy to forget that if English is not your first language sometimes comments can be misinterpreted or appear more rude and abrupt than they are intended to be. Lets try to give some leeway to the forum members trying to type in a foreign language.
ANCORALATINA do not leave Sailnet, but more generic technical answers would keep you out of trouble and be more interesting.

I am typing this while held by a Rocna with BSH (Bloody Serious Holding power). Upwind of me is a boat held by a Spade !


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

JomsViking said:


> My Bruce tends to bring up a lot of mud too, but that anchor also has a shape that are somewhat concave. I also have a Spade, but don't really remember how much mud that brings up, as we're using the Bruce most of the time. Must test


Joms,

I'm familiar with the scoop of mud that comes up with a Bruce. Here on the Chesapeake, it's generally a manageable amount.

What I saw on the Rocna/Manson was orders of magnitude more mud. I do not exaggerate when I say that several cubic feet of mud were stacked atop that anchor.

I went to grab my camera (I wanted to show my friends at Sailnet), but by the time I got it the boat had motored past us and the vantage was lost.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

JohnRPollard said:


> I also want to mention that I do not think an anchor design that brings up that much mud is a good choice for the Chesapeake region. Here we are fortunate to have good holding in thick but penetrable mud. There are many choices that offer good holding but that do not bring so much of that mud back up on retrieval.


Again the holding power is directly related to the grip on the seabed. You can draw a direct correlation between the amount of mud brought back, and the anchor's resistance. In this case, it seems a much smaller anchor would be sufficient. So that's about efficiency.

We used a Delta anchor on a semi-circumnavigation from the UK to New Zealand, as most of you will know about. We dragged that da** thing all over the Chesapeake, and its tendency to "drift" and the resulting insecurity in mud was one of the prime motives behind Peter's development of the Rocna.

There are some more comments relating to soft mud, including the Chesapeake, here: Rocna feedback (Rocna Knowledge Base)


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Craig Smith said:


> ....
> We used a Delta on a semi-circumnavigation from the UK to New Zealand, as most of you will know about. We dragged that da** thing all over the Chesapeake, and its tendency to "drift" and the resulting insecurity in mud was one of the prime motives behind Peter's development of the Rocna.
> 
> There are some more comments relating to soft mud, including the Chesapeake, here: Rocna feedback (Rocna Knowledge Base)


Craig,

I haven't perused the link you posted, but I have to agree with you that the Delta does not seem ideally suited for the Chesapeake. Hereabouts, you would have been a lot better off with a comparable Bruce. We have a Delta and it is simply not capable of holding the 2-4 boat raft-ups that our CQR manages with no problem.

In fairness, the CQR is 35 lbs. Our 25 lb Delta has been relegated to use only when we don't expect to be holding multiple boats with it. Our third anchor (10 lb Fortress FX-16) holds better than that Delta, but it's rigged at the stern anchor locker/roller so gets used less. Plus it brings up a lot more mud.

But truthfully, the mud problem with your anchor is a showstopper for me here on the Chesapeake. It's not just the mess it would make on our boat. It's the mess it makes in the adjacent waters as that mud is dumped back overboard. The Chesapeake has very little "flushing", so large amounts of mud dropped into a creek at the surface tends to leave the adjacent waters very nasty for quite a while.

By the time the boat I mentioned above exited our tight anchorage, we had to wait quite a while for the (extra) muddy waters to dissipate/settle out again before we could swim. There was just such a huge slick of muddy brown water left at the surface from their mighty efforts to washdown that anchor (they were even using a boat hook to try to get the mounds of mud off.)

Of course, I'm expressing a regional concern here. Folks who are voyaging far and wide will want the best holding power in the widest sampling of bottoms. But for most sailors that will mean multiple anchor types.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

How is it that vendors are continuing to give their negative opinions on competitors products with full knowledge and cooperation of the mods??
I used a delta for 10 years on the bay in lots of weather and never dragged once. I would buy a new generation anchor today...but crappy disparaging comments by self interested vendors have no place here.
*Letting vendors comment on their competitors products is BS in my opinion and you should make a public announcement of the change in policy so that all vendors will feel free to do the same thing. *


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

John, I appear to have communicated the point re efficiency poorly. Consider replacing your CQR 35 lb with, in all seriousness, a Rocna 6 (13 lb), for almost comparable holding and still better reliability. Is the amount of mud the little 6 brings home with it really such a problem?

If an anchor's not bringing back much mud, then it doesn't have a great grip on the seabed. It will be particularly less effective at a shorter scope.

See my point regarding efficiency. The folk in your anecdote are probably well over-anchored for mud firm enough to stay with the anchor. But, in still softer mud and bad weather, I'm sure they'll be happy. This leads into your last comment.

Folks who are voyaging far and wide will want the best holding power in the widest sampling of bottoms. That means a general purpose anchor that doesn't have serious problems in various bottoms. I will go so far as to say that an anchor like the Rocna will cover all bases at least as well (and usually much better) than any other anchor type. There is absolutely no need to carry different types - this is a hangover from the bad old days of the old generation anchors, when such an approach made sense: each anchor only present to address the flaws of the other(s). Peter for example has four Rocnas on _Kiwi Roa_, and nothing else. We consider that quite adequate for all the recent cruising we've done, including circumnavigating New Zealand, Chilean Patagonia, and Antarctica (full range of bottom types, from 'impossible' rock through sand and kelp/weed to soft mud). That's not puffery, not when it's Peter's boat - what goes is what works and only what works


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

JohnRPollard said:


> As for all that mud... Last weekend we were out on the Chesapeake. A boat adjacent to us in the anchorage weighed first and I had a very good opportunity to view this problem firsthand. I do not know which model Rocna or Manson they were using, but it appeared to be the next larger size to the 15kg -- so probably the same one jorgen is using.
> 
> I have never in my life seen SO MUCH MUD come up with an anchor. Not even on a Danforth style. It was a godawful MESS to behold -- honestly, it was appalling. The amount of mud that came up probably doubled or tripled the weight of the anchor.
> 
> ...


I agree with your statement that the roll bar does not contribute to the mud issue but rather the concave shape. I too was anchored out in the Cheaspeake this past Friday during some severe thunderstorms with 60 knot winds. My 45 lb Manson Supreme held fine and the next day when bringing the anchor aboard there was mud. However the wash down pump made easy work of the mess and had a pretty good sail back to Kent Narrows. I've seen my 35 lb CQR bring up almost an equal mess as the Supreme so the mud issue is not a critical issue for me. The holding power is the issue and that's the benefit of the concave shape. It did take a lot of effort to break the anchor out of the muck after the storm passage, but again that is something that I can live with.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> I used a delta for 10 years on the bay in lots of weather and never dragged once. I would buy a new generation anchor today...but crappy disparaging comments by self interested vendors have no place here.


Cam, my comments are critical and not intended to disparage. I state the facts as supported by testing and real world feedback. Additionally, please forgive me if our own (boating, not business) experiences with the Delta lead my comments a little. Of all anchors, I have the most personal [grim] experience with this type.

I would not decry your own experiences with the Delta, but such feedback can be found with _any_ anchor; and on its own is only one anecdotal data point. For example, with all the material and feedback "out there" now, does anyone who follows these forums still seriously consider the CQR as a sensible choice or good value proposition in light of the alternatives? Yet there are those who continue to suggest just that.

I also always comment in the context of the ideal anchor being that which is the ultimate "general purpose" anchor, i.e. with the greatest versatility and reliability across the greatest range of sea-bed types and usage scenarios. Particular anchor types may slot into a particular circumstance and adequately satisfy a given individual, but then fail spectacularly if examined in a different environment.

Much resistance to the idea of the new generation anchors originates from this situation, with folk not understanding what the big deal is. Unfortunately the extension of this argument, proceeding on a false assumption, is that multiple anchor types must be carried to meet "all scenarios".

It is the combined comparative feedback from boaters with experience of multiple types that is more informative. Consider if you will the mentions of the Delta on the Rocna feedback page I linked to above (search through the page using your browser, for "Delta"). This is what I'm talking about.


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

John,

I'm impressed then  Obviously I have no experience with neither a Rocna nor the Chesapeake, but we do have some really sticky mud in some places.

/Joms



JohnRPollard said:


> Joms,
> 
> I'm familiar with the scoop of mud that comes up with a Bruce. Here on the Chesapeake, it's generally a manageable amount.
> 
> ...


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

Craig Smith said:


> For example, with all the material and feedback "out there" now, does anyone who follows these forums still seriously consider the CQR as a sensible choice or good value proposition in light of the alternatives? Yet there are those who continue to suggest just that.
> 
> .


I did switch to the new anchor design because I did have problems in soft mud with my 35 lb CQR. I now use the 45 lb Supreme on my Tayana 37, however one data point is worth mentioning. Back in 1985 when the boat was brand new, we were anchored in a hurricane hole here on the Cheaspeake when Hurricane Gloria (only a Cat 1) came up the bay. I'll never do that again if I can help it, but the point is that little 35 lb CQR on a rope/chain rode held a 32000 lb displacement boat going through some pretty severe windshifts.

One other observation about anchor tests. The resetting ability is what I would want in an anchor and that is one of the strengths of the CQR. I've only had the Manson Supreme for 2 years now and probably anchored out only about two dozen times over that period, but as more experience is gained more confidence is gained. This past Friday I set the anchor and the severe thunderstorm winds came out of 90 degrees opposite to where I set it and it did fine.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Just checking back to see if the crap to content ratio in this thread is consistent. 

I have to wonder what it is about anchor salesmen, however. Our old friend Craig Smith...I never expected him to look like the calm, rational one! Why, he seems barely partisan...by contrast!

JRP, I can sense you polishing the banstick at some distance, but amongst all the allegations of war crimes, there are a few nuggets of good information here. Those of us who see the Rocna and the Manson Supreme as functionally equivalent (stop grinding your teeth, Craig) are learning a lot about the "special conditions" such as mud bottoms, that may be a factor in deciding to buy it. Me, I may never anchor in in the Chesapeake, but I can certainly see anchoring up river deltas, and this information is good to have. Also, the stuff about rode twist and the question about swivels is great, great information.

A coastal cruiser, unless mainly on the hook as a matter of course, is liable to have one main anchor and one "lunch hook", like a 20 lb. Danforth, say, unless local bottom condtions or powerful tides and currents dictate going "big" all the time. That person now has more pieces of information thanks to this thread, and can decide for themselves if the newer generation of anchors is appropriate.

For me, readying for a circ, the situation is more ambiguous. I will carry perhaps five anchors in total, with two on the bowsprit and one at the stern "deployable" at any given time, and two in reserve for unusual conditions, like rocks or weeds, and as spares. Obviously, I will tend to have a "main" and it will tend to be larger, as the boat is going to be 34,000 lbs or so fully loaded, and I will tend to favour "one size up". So I am very much in the category of wanting both superior holding power and quick resetting. One way or another, I am likely to buy a largish, and new design. I will also use a bridle, snubbers and adequate, all-chain rode. Because I will have the capacity to carry it, I will have the tendency to deploy any and all means to aid whatever anchor I use to the best of my ability to accomplish the task of keeping the boat where I want it to be.

But I sure as hell won't be chucking my CQR or my Bruce. I know they work, and I can see in a protected or a calm situation just chucking them over with a rope rode because it will halve the time I spend retrieving and stowing them later. It's called a "main" anchor (formerly "best bower", I suppose!), but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the ground tackle most commonly deployed, at least aboard a passagemaker.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

*Anchor Tests*

Here is what I'ld like to see on anchor tests. Maybe Mainesail can improve upon.

1. Get a handle on the forces excerted on various boats during various wind and wave conditions. Putting strain gages on boats in a mooring field over a period of time might be a good way to acconplish this.

2. Make up a test pool filled with mud(maybe a dozen or more dump trucks of mud would be needed) and covered by a foot or so of water so that visual observation can be recorded(maybe the water is not needed). The mud etc should be at least several feet deep to allow pentration of the anchor and should be maintained consistance(by repacking etc) over the various pulls and anchor tests.

3. The pulling device should be able to adjust height to simulate various scope settings and measure forces applied.

4. Once an anchor is set(recording force) then a pull at 180 degrees should be made to see the effect. (recording distance to reset and force applied).

Step 4 is the critical one and without any rotating force I doubt if many anchors can pass this test if the resulting force is quickly applied.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Everyone here that reads this horribly hijacked thread needs to understand that Craig Smith and AncorLatina both have products they are trying to sell. I am not in any way inferring that they would "lie" to sell their products. Neither will I say that they will not. I have, in general, found Craig a good resource on this forum though I have found his comments very biased. However, with both Craig and Ancor Latina I do not particularly mind them giving their own personal experiences and citing their frustrations with other products as long as it is kept above the belt. THere is a line that can be crossed to being disparaging - and if you cannot figure what that is then I will tell you/delete it for you with a stern warning. I am telling everyone this so that they realize that vendor's comments may be biased. If the reader is not smart enough to figure that out, they have no business boating.

JORGENL - 

I would give the swivel a shot. We use it on our Delta (all chain) and it makes retrieval easier because we have that roller that sticks out with a lunch hook beside it and it makes spinning the anchor easier so that we can get her to rest on the roller. 

What's a couple hundred more bucks (smile)??

Brian


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Craig Smith said:


> Jorgen has not participated in the discussion further, so I presume that either he is satisfied with this response, or *has been scared off by the subsequent antics*.


Nah, been out sailing. 

I will probably take CD's advice (it is generally good and cheap  ) and fork out another $0.1K for a swivel.

Cheers / Jorgen


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

$0.1K...priceless!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Jorgen—

Two points I'd make about the swivel. 

First, get a galvanized one...the stainless steel ones can fail without warning, due to crevice corrosion, if anchored out for longer periods of time. Second, watch out for side loading on most of the swivels. It will cause them to fail at well below their rated breaking limits. The stainless steel ball-type swivels are the worst offenders due to the very limited range of motion they have.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

camaraderie said:


> How is it that vendors are continuing to give their negative opinions on competitors products with full knowledge and cooperation of the mods??
> I used a delta for 10 years on the bay in lots of weather and never dragged once. I would buy a new generation anchor today...but crappy disparaging comments by self interested vendors have no place here.
> *Letting vendors comment on their competitors products is BS in my opinion and you should make a public announcement of the change in policy so that all vendors will feel free to do the same thing. *


Cam,

Thanks for raising that issue. I have a lot of respect for your opinions on these matters so I went back to review our policy on "special interests".

With that in mind, I'd have to agree that some of what's been posted here by Craig and ancoralatina does cross the line. I will confer with my fellow moderators and see what we can do to clean this up so as not to set a future precedent.

I did want to mention that there is a bit of a grey area in these matters. On one hand, we require full disclosure and no self-promotion (or bashing of competitors), but on the other hand we do allow participation by vendors. It's a bit like letting the fox in the henhouse if only they'll announce themselves and promise to behave.  Most of know how that will turn out, eventually.

All the same, it's our responsibility as moderators to police this issue, so to the extant my participation in this thread encouraged the problem, I accept the blame on that.



Valiente said:


> ....JRP, I can sense you polishing the banstick at some distance, but amongst all the allegations of war crimes, there are a few nuggets of good information here. ....


Val,

I've found (parts of) this conversation valuable too. The "ban stick" never came out of storage -- the membership seemed to sort out most of the "issues" that cropped up here without our help. My feelings are very much in line with what CD posted above. We may have to tidy up a few posts but that's okay.



Valiente said:


> ... I will carry perhaps five anchors in total, with two on the bowsprit and one at the stern "deployable" at any given time, and two in reserve for unusual conditions, like rocks or weeds, and as spares. ....
> 
> But I sure as hell won't be chucking my CQR or my Bruce. I know they work, and I can see in a protected or a calm situation just chucking them over with a rope rode because it will halve the time I spend retrieving and stowing them later. It's called a "main" anchor (formerly "best bower", I suppose!), but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the ground tackle most commonly deployed, at least aboard a passagemaker.


Our boat is almost identically configured (two ready on the bow, one ready on the stern). We had a fourth anchor aboard (another Fortress with chain/line rode, both brand new) as a spare. But I recently gave it to a friend for his new boat. Three seems to be more than enough anchors for our coastal adventures. We'll be ashore or else nicely protected if any big blows come up.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Craig Smith said:


> ...If an anchor's not bringing back much mud, then it doesn't have a great grip on the seabed. It will be particularly less effective at a shorter scope...


Craig, that's the first I've ever heard of a "how-much-mud-does-it-bring-up" anchor test!  

Seriously, eventually somebody clever will conceive a better anchor, one that rivals yours in holding power but doesn't bring half the sea-bed up with it. That's a convenience for which I'd pay a premium.


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

I have a Beneteau 393 and have had a Manson Supreme 45# for the past three years. I cruise SE US and the Bahamas every winter. The 45# with all chain is unbelievable in all conditions, max 50+ knots so far. I don't think anything bigger will make any difference. Go with the 45#.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

JohnRPollard said:


> Our boat is almost identically configured (two ready on the bow, one ready on the stern). We had a fourth anchor aboard (another Fortress with chain/line rode, both brand new) as a spare. But I recently gave it to a friend for his new boat. Three seems to be more than enough anchors for our coastal adventures. We'll be ashore or else nicely protected if any big blows come up.


Yes, I agree. Five anchors is predicated as much on the fear of having to have something like an anchor shipped to me in some South Pacific mooring ball as much as it is prudent seamanship. Coastal, not so much. You can see my two current (well, would be current if I wasn't on the hard!) anchors in this picture, along with the triple roller and the tab for the snubber and the bobstay:


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Also, you may run into a situation where you need to cut one or more anchors free temporarily and leave before you can retrieve them... so having a couple extras is a good, prudent measure to take.



Valiente said:


> Yes, I agree. Five anchors is predicated as much on the fear of having to have something like an anchor shipped to me in some South Pacific mooring ball as much as it is prudent seamanship. Coastal, not so much. You can see my two current (well, would be current if I wasn't on the hard!) anchors in this picture, along with the triple roller and the tab for the snubber and the bobstay:


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Valiente said:


> Yes, I agree. Five anchors is predicated as much on the fear of having to have something like an anchor shipped to me in some South Pacific mooring ball as much as it is prudent seamanship. Coastal, not so much. You can see my two current (well, would be current if I wasn't on the hard!) anchors in this picture, along with the triple roller and the tab for the snubber and the bobstay:


Val,

Those folks are brave standing under the boat while it's suspended from a crane!!

Nice anchor system. But I couldn't quite figure what you meant by "the tab for the snubber and the bobstay".

One suggestion I have would be to replace the clevis pin with a shackle where the lower terminal end of the bobstay attaches to the bobstay tang. That is where/how we attach our snubber line. The trick is to find a shackle whose pin is the same size as the bobstay clevis pin. The good news is that this ends up being a VERY beefy shackle, just what you want for an anchoring system.

You can sort of see our snubber in action in the below photo, note that the anchor rode coming off the bow roller is "relaxed". You can also almost see our stern anchor ready for deployment:


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Yes, John, that's a good idea, and that's a fine looking vessel you have.

The launch crew heard that my boat is a mere 29,500 lbs. and not 30,000, as reported, so milling about under it is presumably OK. Of course, as the owner, I needed to back off 25 feet to get a good picture!

The steel tab where the bobstay attached (indeed, with a clevis pin as you note), has a second hole beneath it (probably hard to see here), where a pinned or shackled snubber can "bring the rode down" to or below the water surface itself. Used in conjunction or in place of a bridle (I have welded-in, coffee can-sized bollards with beefy fairleads), you can relieve much of the strain from the bow roller itself, and much of the shock loading caused by a boat "hunting" in contrary currents or waves.

The shackle instead of clevis pin is therefore not necessary for me, because of that second attachment point through 1/2 in. of plate steel, but if I had but a single point of attachment on an F/G boat (presumably backed by a few well-sealed bolts and a great big backing plate!), it would be a great idea.

Due to the bowsprit, I can reach down and secure the snubber to the bobstay itself temporarily, or can bring it into the anchor well and lash the end free of any encumbrance. I am still working out a method whereby I could remove the snubber entirely for passagemaking (a spring-loaded pin as is found on spinnaker and whisker poles comes to mind), but then I'd still have to have conditions benign enough to set it up prior to anchoring. Maybe my kid in a bosun's chair??

Your stern anchor looks good. Although I've yet to have occasion to use mine, I find the Danforth seems to be a near-universal choice for the stern anchor, "hang it on the rail" job, possibly because it can hang quite "flat" and won't foul dock lines, towing bridles or even warps if located well and secured properly. Also, stern anchors customarily take only a portion of the load of the primary bow anchor, and, one hopes, won't be put to the same test.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Hey John,

What do you use to hang the stern anchor of the pushpit?

I have been thinking about this bracket:

Rail Mount Anchor Bracket

For a Fortress anchor.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Valiente said:


> Yes, John, that's a good idea, and that's a fine looking vessel you have....
> 
> The steel tab where the bobstay attached (indeed, with a clevis pin as you note), has a second hole beneath it (probably hard to see here), where a pinned or shackled snubber can "bring the rode down" to or below the water surface itself. Used in conjunction or in place of a bridle (I have welded-in, coffee can-sized bollards with beefy fairleads), you can relieve much of the strain from the bow roller itself, and much of the shock loading caused by a boat "hunting" in contrary currents or waves....


Val, thanks for the compliment.

Now that you called my attention to it, I do see the second hole in your bobstay tang. That's handy -- ours doesn't have that feature hence the "bow" shackle. I went with a bow to allow the snubber line to shift about a bit as the boat veers at anchor, rather than side loading a d-shackle.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about removing the snubber line for passagemaking (unless you're worried about UV exposure??) We leave ours affixed to the shackle, and bring it in over the bow rollers when the rode is retrieved, then just cleat it off tight on deck. It essentially parallels the path of the bobstay itself. Maybe it will save our rig some day if the bobstay ever fails?


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> What do you use to hang the stern anchor of the pushpit?


Try something more dedicated


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Craig Smith said:


> Try something more dedicated


Craig,

Mate, that looks very dedicated.

Remember - mine is a production boat, not an expedition ship.

I anticipate very little usage of the stern anchor, we may use it some during our 4 months in the Bahamas this upcoming winter.

Should my assumptions be incorrect, I will consider a dedicated setup next time around.

Thanks for your help. I think my Rocna should be a good investment for my cruise.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

jorgenl said:


> Hey John,
> 
> What do you use to hang the stern anchor of the pushpit?
> 
> ...


Jorgen,

That's exactly what we use, with good results.

Our Fortress hangs "vertically" off the stern pulpit from that bracket. I have been thinking about re-orienting it so the shank runs "horizontal", which in my opinion is a cleaner looking installation. It would require tying off the end of the shank, as well (rather than simply relying on gravity to hold the anchor in place as we do now.)

Though not nearly as "dedicated" as Craig's image, we have a stern anchor roller, hawse hole, and rode locker at the port quarter, which makes deployment child's play.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> Remember - mine is a production boat, not an expedition ship.


I know 

In all seriousness, pay some attention to what you go placing where, and the strength of the pulpit, with a mind to sea going-ness. Breaking waves and running seas - solid water will do a lot given the large fluke of an anchor like a Fortress to work with.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Craig Smith said:


> Try something more dedicated


I'm beginning to warm to you, Craig. That was funny, _and _you still pitched the Rocna. 

I like that set-up. It probably encourages the daysailors to avoid the vessel as it's backing down. Of course, putting it on a double-ender runs the risk of boarding at the foredeck and wondering where you left the helm...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Craig Smith said:


> Try something more dedicated


Good Lord!!!!

- CD


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Good Lord!!!!
> 
> - CD


Hey Brian,

That setup might be a nice compliment to the dual BBQ's?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> Hey Brian,
> 
> That setup might be a nice compliment to the dual BBQ's?


I hear ya! I thought the same thing. What a waste to put an anchor there!!!

Brian


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

That's beefy enough to hold a beer keg. Barbequing is dry work.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

Hey, suppose, just suppose that the Raya really is a good anchor and even better than all the rest? Could it be? When I first started following this forum, the Rocna promoter seemed to be trashed all the time ...now people are saying what a great anchor along with the Manson.

If the manufacturer wants to sell Rayas, they need to get some distribution...ordering one based on a price in Argentina with lots of issues about shipping, getting through customs, etc. is going discourage people from trying it. Why, Maine Sail probably would be glad to test one if it was readily available. If I want to buy one of the other anchors, I can go to West Marine, (and may other places) and find what it will cost me. Why not Raya? If Raya is a patent infringement, there are courts where the patent holder can get justice...this is not a problem for we boaters in general.

I personally think there is a lot of hype about all the new anchors, but there also seems to be a gathering of support for them. One of the biggest issues I see, is that all the new style anchors are too expensive...get the price right and I (and many others) might consider one.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

We ALWAYS said Rocna was a great anchor...it was Craig and his tactics we objected to...Along with ALAIN Poireaud of Spade...another great anchor with an ass for a promoter. The only think we don't know about the Raya...is if it is as good as the other new gen anchors. We already know about the promoter. 

The promoters make a good case for buying a Manson. The best priced of all of them and the most SILENT.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

That's true. The Manson is only pimped out by its users, not its sales reps.

Nonetheless, I have two years to get convinced one way or the other. I wonder if I specify as a delivery crew "must have Rocna, Raya or Manson and a nearby crappy anchorage" if I would get any rides?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

One point about the Manson Supreme's "rock slot"... how does the anchor know if the shackle has moved down the anchor shaft because you're trying to retrieve it and not because the wind or current has shifted.... OH, Yeah, it doesn't... and it will come unset if either the wind or current has shifted and you're using the rock slot. Strikes me as a stupid idea and weakens the shaft unnecessarily.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Here's a bit of follow up.

I looked at Rocna's spec for the rode attached point on the anchor.

http://www.rocna.com/wiki/images/4/47/Rocna-rode-attachment-point-diagrams.pdf

For the Rocna 20 the slot for the rode is 14 mm * 41.8 mm and the shank thickness is 16 mm.

Excellent info, I think and go and buy the Kong 644.12 anchor swivel.

Now, when I try to fit the swivel, it does not work. This is because the pin on the swivel that goes thru the shank is about 13 mm. Should fit good thru a 14mm slot, right?

No - because the slot is actually only 12.5 mm (according to my vernier calipers). How about some tighter manufacturing tolerances???

No probs, I buy a kong 644.08 swivel instead. It's only money, right?, Pin is only about 9 mm and opening for shank is 16.5 mm. Should work right? No it does not because the shank is actually 16.7 mm thick. Tolerances dudes!!!

Dang, looks like Kong swivels may not work.

So, I check out the at specs for Suncor swivels.

S0190-0008

opening for chank is 0.66" = 16.76 mm, Shank 16.7 mm ... tight fit...
pin = 0.37" .= 9.4 mm. should work fine in a 12.5 mm slot 

S0190-0013

opening for shank is 0.87" = 22.1 mm - no worries, plenty of opening  
pin = 0.5" = 12.7 mm. Slot 12.5 mm - not so good, press fit

Bottom line - Craig Smith, it appears that you have managed to design an anchor with a rode attachement point that does not work for the most commonly available swivels 

So, it seems that my option is to use the Kong 644.12, get a dremmel and open up the slot to 13 or 13.5 mm. Not what I wanted to do and in addition it will ruin the galvanize (maybe not a big deal?)

Cheers / Jorgen


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Or trade it in and buy a spade.... (he-he)!!

- CD


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Or trade it in and buy a spade.... (he-he)!!
> 
> - CD


Contemplating that option


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> Contemplating that option


Hey, shoot some pics of your anchor and I will put it in Mainsheet and or here. We need to see how it fits on the roller.

Also, I found that with the twin roller, I had some difficulties fitting two large anchors unless one was a CQR as it can swivel out of the way. How has that worked for you? I forget what your secondary is? Is the Rocna your storm anchor? Do you carry a lunch hook?

Having two anchors is something I strongly believe in (in spite of what Craig says). I think most experieced sailors are the same way - wanting a lunch hook and an oversized storm. What is your philosophy and how did the Rocna fit into that decision?

Brian


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Brian,

The Rocna fits good in the roller. The tip is somewhat close to the bow (approx 2") but I have it secured pretty good. 

I will shoot some pics tonight.

As to philosophies, I'm a relative rookie on a steep learning curve with 2.5 months left to get the ship ready for a 1 year cruise. My philosophy is that anchors is one of the most important pieces of equipment on the boat. Hence I tried to get the best money could buy. Hopefully I got that. I will carry several. Minimum 2 maybe three.

The Rocna is on 150' of chain.

I got a Danforth as a secondary anchor but will likely swap it for a Fortress. 
The Danfort sits in the anchor locker. 30' chain, 200' rode.

I am considering dividing the locker.

The roller on the C400 should have been "staggered" to better accomodate two anchors, I will see if I can get the 35# delta fit next to the Rocna but I doubt it.


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Hey, shoot some pics of your anchor and I will put it in Mainsheet and or here. We need to see how it fits on the roller.
> 
> Also, I found that with the twin roller, I had some difficulties fitting two large anchors unless one was a CQR as it can swivel out of the way. How has that worked for you? I forget what your secondary is? Is the Rocna your storm anchor? Do you carry a lunch hook?
> 
> Brian


Here's my 45# Manson Supreme and a 44# Claw on my Beneteau 393. They fit very well.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Vasco,

Nice setup!

Staggered roller?

/Jorgen


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Vasco said:


> Here's my 45# Manson Supreme and a 44# Claw on my Beneteau 393. They fit very well.


Hi Rick,

That looks very close to the setup on our 400's. The did not offset the rollers enough which can make it difficult for storing. I noticed many of the newer Catalinas have more of a seperation (offset).

Jorgenl,

Sounds great. Look forward to your writeups and what is working and not working.

- CD


----------



## imagine2frolic (Aug 7, 2008)

That's about as close to nesting you can get. Nice fit Vasco!......i2f


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Well done, Vasco. Food for thought for me, certainly.


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

The 393 came with only one bow roller. I got the dealer to put another one on. Here's some more pics.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> Bottom line - Craig Smith, it appears that you have managed to design an anchor with a rode attachement point that does not work for the most commonly available swivels


Jorgen we design the anchor based on the likely chain which will be used with it, i.e. the largest chain size that is sensible. In this case the maximum chain is 10mm, from which we get a 12mm shackle. Shackle bodies are either the same or smaller than the pin, so + 2mm for clearance gives 14mm. The shank width is typically not an issue with shackles.

In other words we have to adhere to this reality, and swivels can be very bizarre in what they come up with. If we tried designing around all the different and bizarre swivel designs out there, we would end up chasing our tails...

Now, there are varying tolerances from both galvanizing and steel plate thickness. I am sorry about the inaccuracy of the drawings in this case, and I suppose there should be accompanying notes concerning tolerances.

Final word: as per our Knowledge Base entry on swivels, we do not advise attaching any swivel directly to the anchor in any case. The failure mode of swivels in the real world is typically the opening up of the fork (anchor attachment end) in response to lateral forces (sideways loading the anchor, if it gets fouled). Their WLL figures are usually based on direct in-line pulls, which is misleading if you install the swivel in such a way that it can be exposed to other forces. I'd suggest you attached a few links of chain to the anchor, and then the swivel to that chain.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Craig,

Thanks for your response and while I can understand your argument;

I am a Mechanical Engineer by profession.

I have designed many fabricated, sheet metal parts but never have i specified a tolerance such as 14 +/- 1.5 mm ( lower limit then being 12.5 mm as in the case of the Rocna). That is an agricultural size tolerance width. 

The dimension and tolerances specified on a drawing are in 99% of all cases referring to finished state, i.e after surface finish treatment such as galvanizing, anodizing, paint etc etc.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

The idea of having the swivel several links back of the anchor makes sense.


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

Why do you need a swivel?


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Vasco said:


> Why do you need a swivel?


Rick,

Because the fecking lump of Kiwi metal always seems to come out of the water up side down.

I guess I can can just give the chain a 180 deg twist before hauling in the last 3 feet.

I am however trying to avoid getting mud all over me and the ship, had enough of this mess with my 30 footer without windlass.

I want to be able to do like the big boys, push the windlass button with my foot while spraying the anchor and chain with the washdown system 

I guess I'm getting old or sumptin.


----------



## Vasco (Sep 24, 2006)

I always haul the last couple of feet and the anchor by hand. This is to make sure it gets over the roller properly, the shackle doesn't get stuck, or the anchor doesn't hit my headsail furler. Just turn the chain a bit by hand and the Manson Supreme is right side up.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> Rick,
> 
> Because the fecking lump of Kiwi metal always seems to come out of the water up side down.
> 
> ...


My Delta always comes up clean, clear, sparkling, holds through hurricanes, never lets me down, has a swivel that fits, sings to me during the night, doesn't cause international forum wars, and you don't even want me to mention how much it cost!!!

HEHE! You wanna picture??

- CD


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> My Delta always comes up clean, clear, sparkling, holds through hurricanes, never lets me down, has a swivel that fits, sings to me during the night, doesn't cause international forum wars, and you don't even want me to mention how much it cost!!!
> 
> HEHE! You wanna picture??
> 
> - CD


Brian,

Thanks for rubbing it in 

I've already got a Delta 35 lbs. Looks like an inferior piece of equipment to me that might work in calm conditions in Texas but hardly up here in the Chessie.

A fine yacht like yours deserves to be equipped with a proper anchor.

Anyway, we shall try the magnificent Rocna again this weekend and I'll see if I can teach it to come up clean, upside up, and mix a Cuba Libre for me.

Cheers / Jorgen


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

what is it about anchor salesmen?

Nice job anchor latina, it says a lot when you sink lower than craig!!!

My anti-rocna (Manson Supreme) is working great!


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

sailingdog said:


> ....testing has found the "stupid hoop" designs to be far superior to the older, non-hoop designs.


 The French nautical review Voiles & Voiliers publishes in its July issue, a new test of anchors.

Again a test?? 
Yes, but what is interesting is that these various tests are made under various conditions of sea-beds and also compare different anchors.

- if each test does not bring the single and only one truth, the tendency which arises from all tests is a much more faithful reflection of the performances of the various anchors.

The bigest shortcoming of this test is that it is published in French. I do not plan to translate it totaly  , but for those which do not perfectly practise this language, I will try to report the general outlines:

*11 anchors tested on sea bottoms of sand and sand + mud: *

For the steel anchors: *Britany* (a French extrapolation of the Danforth anchor without strut) - *Kobra 2* (Plastimo's extrapolation of the Delta) - *Delta* from Lewmar -* Bügel* - *Manson Supreme *- *Brake* (a typically French anchor) - *Spade* - *XYZ* - and *CQR *

For the aluminium anchors: *Spade* aluminum - *Fortress*, the winner of the test and of the aluminum class is Fortress 10.6, with a holding in hard sand of 3281 kg and on sand + mud: of 959 kg

Winner of the steel category is Spade with an average holding in hard sand of 1905 kg and on sand + mud of 570 kg (_value recorded before rupture of the fixation of the dynamometer_).

The second is the anchor Kobra 2 of Plastimo with an average holding in hard sand of 1263 kg and on sand + mud of 1058 kg - the Kobra anchor represents the best compromise characteristics/price.

In third position comes the Bügel anchor with an average holding in hard sand of 1138 kg kg and on sand + mud of 999 kg

The *fourth* anchor of this comparative test is the Supreme with an average holding in hard sand of 1076 kg and on sand + mud of 631 kg. (In spite of honourable results, this test confirms that the "Roll bar" anchors are not, and by far, the best.)

In fifth position comes Brake, followed in sixth position by the Delta with an average holding in hard sand of 450 kg and on sand + mud of 662 kg. (_If these characteristics are sufficient to ensure the holding of a boat in more than 95% of the cases, the perfomances of the Delta are disapointing and far behind the best in the test _)

Come then Britany with passable results and the two last from the test with frankly bad results: anchor XYZ and the last, the CQR with an average holding in hard sand of 206 kg and on sand + mud of 363 kg

The conclusions of this test are:

- the anchors aluminum give as good performances as the steel models, with however the disadvantage of being more fragile.

- New technologies of anchor are definitely more powerful than their glorious elder, with double, to see triple values of holding.

- Spade, Kobra 2, Bügel and Manson Supreme are excellent anchors having significant differences compared to the traditional anchors.

João


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Hmm... the ultimate anchor test is missing the Raya and the Rocna... and you say you have no connection to Alain, but there's the Spade...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

sailingdog said:


> Hmm... the ultimate anchor test is missing the Raya and the Rocna... and you say you have no connection to Alain, but there's the Spade...


And let's not forget that I actually own BOTH an aluminum Spade and a steel Spade and they DO NOT compare to the setting or holding of the Manson Supreme in real world conditions. Though the steel Spade is a significantly better setter than the aluminum version in hard bottoms neither sets as well, fast or at even close to 100% on the first try like my Manson Supreme has..


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Much less your Rocna. 


Maine Sail said:


> And let's not forget that I actually own BOTH an aluminum Spade and a steel Spade and they DO NOT compare to the setting or holding of the Manson Supreme in real world conditions. *Though the steel Spade is a significantly better setter than the aluminum version in hard bottoms neither sets as well, fast or at even close to 100% on the first try like my Manson Supreme has..*


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

ANCORALATINA said:


> Winner of the steel category is Spade with an average holding in hard sand of 1905 kg and on sand + mud of 570 kg (_value recorded before rupture of the fixation of the dynamometer_).
> The second is the anchor Kobra 2 of Plastimo with an average holding in hard sand of 1263 kg and on sand + mud of 1058 kg - the Kobra anchor represents the best compromise characteristics/price.
> In third position comes the Bügel anchor with an average holding in hard sand of 1138 kg kg and on sand + mud of 999 kg
> The *fourth* anchor of this comparative test is the Supreme with an average holding in hard sand of 1076 kg and on sand + mud of 631 kg. (In spite of honourable results, this test confirms that the "Roll bar" anchors are not, and by far, the best.)


Interesting how this test actually parallels quite closely the results of the West Marine 2006 testing, isn't it? The Spade, Delta, and Buegel are right at the top, almost in the same order. As also in the WM test, the Manson is hurt by slightly inconsistent performance and drops in the rankings when averaged results are considered. And the genuine Rocna?

Here's the WM 2006 averaged "max before release" figures again:


Rocna 32 lb: 4,800 lb-force
Spade 35 lb: 3,300 lb-force
Delta 36 lb: 3,250 lb-force
...
WASI Buegel 32 lb: 2,700 lb-force
...
Manson Supreme 35 lb: 2,400 lb-force
...


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Pimp Pimp Pimp by AL & Craig ...don't buy either anchor. Buy a Manson and prove that on line pimping doesn't pay.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

I think all these so called anchor tests are flawed in that the real test is how well the anchor resets under extreme conditions. Under those conditions I think the good old CQR may come out the winner even though I have replaced my 35 CQR with the 45 lb Manson Supreme. Just like the swivel manufactures tell you the untimate strength of the swivel, but fail to mention that the loading in the lateral plane is the critical measurement which they fail to give and probably don't even test for. How hard is it to set the anchor in one direction and then give a 180 degree pull in the other to see the results??  Plus with all the money going into anchors one would think that a more consistent test could be run other than a hit or miss on the bottom condition that one anchor sees vs another in the same test at the same location.


----------



## marinextreme (Jan 15, 2009)

ANCORALATINA said:


> The French nautical review Voiles & Voiliers publishes in its July issue, a new test of anchors.
> 
> Again a test??
> Yes, but what is interesting is that these various tests are made under various conditions of sea-beds and also compare different anchors.
> ...


The seabed SHHP tests conducted on the Rocna by RINA under certification program will certainly reveal the true picture of the holding power of the Rocna.

Our next press release shortly will make for interesting reading and discussion.


----------

