# Anchors; Plow v. Claw v. Delta v. Fluke



## Talisman66 (Jul 18, 2007)

Doing research about anchors. I have more questions now than I did when I started looking. I searched sailnet for anchor threads and could not find any answers. So, I'll ask you guys. First, what my goal is. I'm trying to achieve a simple durable, low maintenance approach to setting an anchor and having it hold under a variety of conditions for a 45 foot 31,000lb cutter rig. The boat came with a 45lb genuine CQR plow and a 25lb Danforth. I wanted to get a 66lb claw as a primary and use the 45lb plow as a secondary on the bow and carry a spare as well as an aluminum fortress FX below. My thinking was the claw has no moving parts to fail. So, I wanted to get opinions and real life facts as to who is usuing what and why. Also, any good or bad experiences with replica CQR plow type anchors?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd highly recommend looking at the next gen anchors, like the Rocna, Manson Supreme, Buegel, etc.... since they have far more holding power than older designs and set/reset better in most conditions. 

Copies of original design anchors aren't a good idea, as many aren't built to the same specifications as the originals.

I have a Rocna as the primary on my boat and it sets far better and far more securely than older designs, like the CQR, Danforth, and Bruce. Maine Sail, another member here, has most of the commonly used anchors and his two recommendations are usually the Rocna and the Manson Supreme.


----------



## celenoglu (Dec 13, 2008)

All known anchors are good anchors. Make sure you buy originals. The measurements of all anchors are selected due to different reasons. Changing any of them will change how they behave on your boat or at the bottom. 

All anchors claim they have a superior holding power. Some are better than the others on some types of bottom. None of them are superior to another on a general basis. 

Make sure you have at least three different types of anchor. Two should be ready on the deck to change, the third should be the heaviest and can be kept in the cabin.


----------



## patrickstickler (Dec 2, 2008)

Bulwagga

(ugly and a pain to handle and stow, but boy does it grip fast and hold...)


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

don't know what category to put it...I have the Manson Supreme. Still have the CQR as back up.

both are 45 lbs.

We used the CQR several times and dragged twice in 30 k winds. Went back to the same spot, put down the Manson Supreme, saw 35 k winds and didn't move at all.
CQR is hard to set.


----------



## lbdavis (Apr 23, 2007)

You're going to get as many opinions as there are possible combinations.

My vote:
A double roller with: 
- Claw for calm anchorages/lunch hook
- Rocna/Manson Supreme for *REAL *holding.


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

Fortress. It is a kind of a fluke, but I wouldn't use a regular fluke instead.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I wouldn't recommend Fortress or any fluke-type anchor in a reversing current/wind situation.


----------



## billyruffn (Sep 21, 2004)

BR is 47 ft, 24 tons. The original equipment was a 35 kg CQR that we used for several years in New England waters with only one dragging incident (oyster shells on the bottom). Switched to the 30 kg Bruce when we went into the tropics, as it was said to have better holding in sand over coral (?Who knows?). Have used it ever since and have not had a problem with it -- a couple of times we needed to try for a better set, but once its in, we've never had it come out until we broke it out. (No doubt, some of our good fortune is due to the 1/2" chain the hook is attached to.)

There may be better anchors out there, but the only trouble with trying them is they're so damn expensive!


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

Now you've done it.


----------



## scottbr (Aug 14, 2007)

Here we go again ...... 

you searched and didn't find many discussions on anchors ???? That's because everyone here is 100% in agreement on what to use. :laugher :laugher 

Seriously tho, there is lots of info on anchors and anchoring. I researched for over 6 months on what to buy and how to use the anchor properly. I've seen 35 knots sustained for a couple of hours on one set and on another, gusts to 52 knots on a short scope, bad set, 100 deg. wind shift and did not budge either time. 

BTW, you left out a few anchor types in your survey.


----------



## Talisman66 (Jul 18, 2007)

scottbr said:


> Here we go again ......
> 
> you searched and didn't find many discussions on anchors ???? That's because everyone here is 100% in agreement on what to use. :laugher :laugher
> 
> ...


There were discussions about anchors but no definative answers. My obsessive research has lead to more questions than answers. All the test data from mfg's say theirs is the best over the others. The independent tests I've read conflict with one another. I've looked at anchors being used by cruisers and liveaboards in marinas, the ones being hauled out, because otherwise they are on the hook. I left out "new generation" and a few others due to the availability to buy one on the fly. The market is full of the 4 basic anchors, new or used, if I needed to find one outside the US. Most tests say the "Spade" is the best, but I only left it out due to cost, however, if it is the "best" I'd buy it and be done. Some say Rocna, but I'm not sold on the rollbar concept. I've wondered if any of the rollbar anchors have ever landed upside down and not rolled over, only to set itself against rocks on the rollbar, then breakout, or worse get lodged and not breakout. SD, maybe you could explain how you arrived at a Rocna?

I'm sure this debate stirs up some dust. Its like the endless "cambelt change" debate among Ferrari owners. Nobody really knows, we just do what we think is best. That is why I started this, for real world experiences. I like everyones comments. Keep them coming...


----------



## josrulz (Oct 15, 2006)

Hi Talisman66--you're right that when you search on this topic you sometimes find as many questions as you do answers! There are many threads, because there are no definitive answers due to the nature of the topic. Even the anchor tests differ because it all depends on so many variables--was the test done in sand, soft mud, hard mud, mud over sand, sand over rock, rock, etc.? How much chain was used, how much rode? 

To some extent, and this is just my opinion, I think you have to read what's available on Sailnet and other resources, and then ultimately go with your gut. That's what I did. The boat we purchased a couple months ago only had one anchor, so we really had to buy another. The existing anchor is a Fortress, which I think is a good second anchor, but I wanted a non-danforth style anchor as our primary. 

So I read what I could read, searched as much as possible, and listened to what folks said on this board. Then I just made a gut call on it. For what it's worth (which probably isn't much), I just purchased the Rocna (sailingdog will be happy to know).  

Good luck on your anchor quest...
-J


----------



## Bilgewater (Jul 17, 2008)

I use a 50lb CQR copy and a Bruce and danforth backup. I know there is newer technology out there but these have worked well for me. I do have 350' of all chain on a 33' boat so this likely helps a lot. I used to have the Bruce as my primary anchor but I noticed it held poorly in a weed bottom so I switched and the CQR seems to hold in more of a variety of bottoms and high winds.


----------



## patrickstickler (Dec 2, 2008)

Talisman66 said:


> ...Some say Rocna, but I'm not sold on the rollbar concept. I've wondered if any of the rollbar anchors have ever landed upside down and not rolled over, only to set itself against rocks on the rollbar, then breakout, or worse get lodged and not breakout. ....


Really, have a look at the Bulwagga. It's design ensures that no matter what angle it lands at, it digs in (when I first got it, I had to learn the hard way to be ready for it to seemingly set instantly, and if I had too firm a grip on the rode, it'd nearly pull me over the bow ;-)

And when shifting, it resets very quickly.

Bulwagga Marine Anchors, the world's most dependable boat anchor

(note: I have no affilliation with the manufacturers, other than as a very satisfied customer)

FWIW, I also have a Fortress and collapsible claw/grappling hook anchors as backups or occasional stern anchor...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'm not a big fan of the Bulwagga anchor. First, it is far harder to stow due to the three fluke design. Second, the third fluke, which doesn't bury is liable to snag the rode, and might prevent the anchor from resetting if that happens. Third, the mechanical connection between the stock and the flukes seems to be a weak point IMHO. 

A one piece anchor with no moving parts is more reliable with greater durability. That's why I went with the Rocna. The Manson Supreme is supposed to be almost as good, at least according to Maine Sail, who owns both. I chose the Rocna because I thought the design and construction was a bit better, even though it did have a pretty steep price premium. 

Rocna claims that the Manson Supreme is a copy of their anchor, and I'm likely to agree. If you consider that three of the anchors Manson makes are definitely copies, it seems likely that their fourth one would be too. Ray=Bruce, Plough=CQR, Sand=Danforth ===> Supreme=Rocna.

I'm also not a big fan of keeping your "storm" anchor down below. IMHO, it makes much more sense to size your primary big enough to deal with a storm if one comes up. Most people have undersized primary anchors and have to resort to storm anchors, tandem anchoring or some other method when the weather gets nasty... if the primary is properly sized, then you don't have those worries.


----------



## patrickstickler (Dec 2, 2008)

sailingdog said:


> I'm not a big fan of the Bulwagga anchor.


Folks can be very passionate about anchors, and certainly everyone has different requirements and expectations, and I certainly do not have the experience that you and others have, so I'm not wanting to get into a major debate about them, but still wanted to comment on your impressions of the Bulwagga, just to offer an alternative viewpoint...



> First, it is far harder to stow due to the three fluke design.


Agreed. It's also rather ugly IMO, and can "bite" your fingers if you're not careful. It definitely needs to be kept on a bow roller (but on a bow roller, it's no more difficult to store than any other anchor).



> Second, the third fluke, which doesn't bury is liable to snag the rode, and might prevent the anchor from resetting if that happens.


Well, given its design, and having handled one alot, I can't see how it would. There's nothing really to snag that the rode wouldn't easily pass over it if/when the anchor shifted around and tension was put on the rode. I don't see snagging as a real possibility (not sure I could even get it to snag if I tried).



> Third, the mechanical connection between the stock and the flukes seems to be a weak point IMHO.


Maybe. Though I don't share that impression, and have never heard of one breaking. Any anchor can have its limit exceeded, so you have to have the right size for your boat (same as any other type).



> A one piece anchor with no moving parts is more reliable with greater durability.


I think that depends on what you mean by "reliability" and "durability". I find the Bulwagga design to be the most reliable I've used, or seen used (i.e. sets reliably and in every type of bottom, resets reliably and quickly, holds well) and it seems more than durable enough (again, if sized properly for the boat).

In fact, the sliding shaft is good insurance if it gets hung up, and thus can provide more reliable retrieval. So it's certainly a matter of perspective whether a one piece anchor is necessarily more reliable or durable.



> That's why I went with the Rocna.


Rocna was my second choice, and I think it's a really good looking anchor. I'd much prefer to have that hanging off my bow than the Bulwagga, but in the end, it's not about form, but function. I'd rather have an ugly anchor if I can rely on it more.



> ...
> 
> I'm also not a big fan of keeping your "storm" anchor down below. IMHO, it makes much more sense to size your primary big enough to deal with a storm if one comes up. Most people have undersized primary anchors and have to resort to storm anchors, tandem anchoring or some other method when the weather gets nasty... if the primary is properly sized, then you don't have those worries.


Agreed. Other than occasionally just tossing out a lighter anchor from the stern when stopping briefly, I use the Bulwagga for all "real" anchoring, and then don't have to worry about any surprises.


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> I wouldn't recommend Fortress or any fluke-type anchor in a reversing current/wind situation.


Everyone says that but my experience so far does not bear this out. In any case, there are other ways to deal with significantly reversing winds/currents - however setting ability and holding power of Fortress (and the fact that I can actually lift even the largest one, and it does not break off my anchor roller either while sailing  ). 
I would rather not have anything weighting over 50lbs with sharp ends and not bolted down on the bow of my boat.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

patrickstickler said:


> Folks can be very passionate about anchors, and certainly everyone has different requirements and expectations, and I certainly do not have the experience that you and others have, so I'm not wanting to get into a major debate about them, but still wanted to comment on your impressions of the Bulwagga, just to offer an alternative viewpoint...
> 
> Agreed. It's also rather ugly IMO, and can "bite" your fingers if you're not careful. It definitely needs to be kept on a bow roller (but on a bow roller, it's no more difficult to store than any other anchor).
> 
> ...


Any point that has two surfaces in friction under pressure like the bulwagga stock does is going to wear through the galvanization, meaning that those areas will likely become exposed to corrosion more quickly. That's a big factor in durability.



> I think that depends on what you mean by "reliability" and "durability". I find the Bulwagga design to be the most reliable I've used, or seen used (i.e. sets reliably and in every type of bottom, resets reliably and quickly, holds well) and it seems more than durable enough (again, if sized properly for the boat).
> 
> In fact, the sliding shaft is good insurance if it gets hung up, and thus can provide more reliable retrieval. So it's certainly a matter of perspective whether a one piece anchor is necessarily more reliable or durable.


My argument against the sliding shaft and the "rock slot" on the Manson Supreme is simple-how can the anchor know if the rode's change of position is due to the intentional attempt to retrieve it? *It can't, so a wind or current shift could accidentally lead to the anchor being pulled free and not able to reset. *



> Rocna was my second choice, and I think it's a really good looking anchor. I'd much prefer to have that hanging off my bow than the Bulwagga, but in the end, it's not about form, but function. I'd rather have an ugly anchor if I can rely on it more.
> 
> Agreed. Other than occasionally just tossing out a lighter anchor from the stern when stopping briefly, I use the Bulwagga for all "real" anchoring, and then don't have to worry about any surprises.


I think the Rocna or Manson Supreme set as well the Bulwagga without its durability, stowage, or design issues.


----------



## scottbr (Aug 14, 2007)

Talisman66 said:


> There were discussions about anchors but no definative answers. My obsessive research has lead to more questions than answers. All the test data from mfg's say theirs is the best over the others. The independent tests I've read conflict with one another. I've looked at anchors being used by cruisers and liveaboards in marinas, the ones being hauled out, because otherwise they are on the hook. I left out "new generation" and a few others due to the availability to buy one on the fly. The market is full of the 4 basic anchors, new or used, if I needed to find one outside the US. Most tests say the "Spade" is the best, but I only left it out due to cost, however, if it is the "best" I'd buy it and be done. Some say Rocna, but I'm not sold on the rollbar concept. I've wondered if any of the rollbar anchors have ever landed upside down and not rolled over, only to set itself against rocks on the rollbar, then breakout, or worse get lodged and not breakout. SD, maybe you could explain how you arrived at a Rocna?
> 
> I'm sure this debate stirs up some dust. Its like the endless "cambelt change" debate among Ferrari owners. Nobody really knows, we just do what we think is best. That is why I started this, for real world experiences. I like everyones comments. Keep them coming...


There is no definitive answer.... you'll just have to go with who and what you trust. Most of the boats in my area of the Great Lakes use either the Bruce or CQR, beacuase they've worked for years, although I've seen a couple drag past me in a storm, while I sat tight. I did lots of research and went with a Rocna based on the many recommendations I received on the forums and from the testing video that Maine Sail did on a few anchors by himself.

I'm not sure why you'd want to buy one "on the fly" are you transient that you can't wait for a shipment.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

patrickstickler said:


> Really, have a look at the Bulwagga. It's design ensures that no matter what angle it lands at, it digs in (when I first got it, I had to learn the hard way to be ready for it to seemingly set instantly, and if I had too firm a grip on the rode, it'd nearly pull me over the bow ;-)
> 
> And when shifting, it resets very quickly.
> 
> ...


Patrick,

You might want to read this thread and post by a fellow on SBO. He just lost his boat to a Bullwagga. there is NO single perfect anchor. Franklin thought the Bullwagga was pretty much a self setter but learned otherwise.

I feel terrible for Franklin as he is a great contributor to SBO but false sense of security is what gets you in trouble. Franklin's insurace company now wants to total his vessel...

Never trust any anchor too much and always use proper scope and setting techniques even with a Bullwegga!

I currently use a Rocna and still back down at 80% reverse throttle..

*Frankiln's Bullwagga Dragging Story (LINK)* See post #22 in that thread

*Bulwagga Damage Photo*


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

That's right, Franklin did lose his boat while it was using a Bulwagga.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

*Old generation versus new generation!*

I believe the poll should have been:

"Old gen" anchors: Plow - claw - fluke anchors versus « next gen » anchors: 
- BSH anchors: Rocna- Supreme and scoop anchor = RAYA

It would have been easier to reach a consensus!

João


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> If you consider that three of the anchors Manson makes are definitely copies, it seems likely that their fourth one would be too. Ray=Bruce, Plough=CQR, Sand=Danforth ===> Supreme=Rocna.


Hmm. I wonder where you first heard that observation?


----------



## IslanderGuy (Apr 26, 2008)

Oh man, just when I thought I had it figured out, you guys go making me think again.  

Here is where I am at...

Boat - 32 ft Islander, ~10K pounds. Cruising the PNW, hoping to go south to Mexico, Central America, etc.

Currently have 2 fluke type anchors, not sure of the brand. Why? Because they came with the boat, seem to work well in our current area and our current fair weather sailing is relatively safe. However, a new anchoring setup is on my "Do Soon" list, so I have been researching this too. Here are my thoughts, for what they are worth....

1. No moving parts. They might be good, but so are other anchors and handling a heavy floppy anchor sounds like no fun on my rather limited foredeck. Also, having a wife and kids who are handling the anchor makes me want to make it as finger safe as possible. If there was a large enough difference with these types, I might consider them, but for me I am not seeing enough benefit.

2. I looked at the Rocna and Manson and was convinced of their higher holding power and easier set. However, the fact that the roll bar seems to always bring up a lot of junk was a big negative to me as we do not have a windlass and would rather not on our smallish boat.

3. Delta (currently top of the list) Seems these have worked well (but not perfect) all over the world for a long time. Sure some people drag, some people do not get it set right, etc. But with a high volume of anchors out there you are bound to find a number of people who do not know anything about anchoring, then complain when the anchor does not work when dropped over the side at 2x1 scope in a storm. I have heard enough world cruisers talk about delta's who never had a problem to feel confident that if used correctly, they will hold my boat securely. Sure I might might want a second anchor deployed before they guy with a Rocna in the same anchorage, but for the few times I will have to go through the hassle I feel it would be worth it. 

Just my thoughts so far, of course I have not purchased anything yet


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Sorry for the bad link above*

Sorry for the bad link here is a better one..

*Frankiln's Bullwagga Dragging Story (LINK)* See post #22 in that thread


----------



## Talisman66 (Jul 18, 2007)

ANCORALATINA said:


> I believe the poll should have been:
> 
> "Old gen" anchors: Plow - claw - fluke anchors versus « next gen » anchors:
> - BSH anchors: Rocna- Supreme and scoop anchor = RAYA
> ...


Had this 2006 test but was not sure what the test variables were; sea beds, rode types, scope ratio, direct pull or offset....etc.


----------



## negrini (Apr 2, 2008)

Used Bruce my entire nautical life (hummmm say 20+ years ?). I'm really amazed by my actual 44lb Rocna & all chain !!


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

Maine Sail said:


> Sorry for the bad link here is a better one..
> 
> *Frankiln's Bullwagga Dragging Story (LINK)* See post #22 in that thread


I just like the mention of Fortress in the story within story:


> I was just resting on the Fortress


 

I know, I am a fan - what can I do


----------



## patrickstickler (Dec 2, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> Patrick,
> 
> You might want to read this thread and post by a fellow on SBO. He just lost his boat to a Bullwagga.


Ummm.... I think that's a stretch.

Yes, his anchor was a Bulwagga, but in the same circumstances with the same practices applied, the results could very likely have been the same with any anchor.

Your comment essentially asserts that "if he had used some other anchor other than a Bulwagga, he wouldn't have lost his boat" which I find to be a rather unsupportable conclusion. Even the boat owner doesn't make such a claim, and seems to suggest that the problems were due to the holding conditions and usage, and not to any fault or shortcoming of the anchor.



> there is NO single perfect anchor. Franklin thought the Bullwagga was pretty much a self setter but learned otherwise.
> 
> I feel terrible for Franklin as he is a great contributor to SBO but false sense of security is what gets you in trouble. Franklin's insurace company now wants to total his vessel...
> 
> ...


I've never stated that a Bulwagga was any kind of "magic" anchor that wouldn't still require proper anchoring techniques. I myself always back down on my anchor (whatever I'm using) and don't rely on a single anchor or set of mooring lines if it gets snotty.

Overconfidence in anything is the surest way to lose a boat.

Sheesh... a MacGregor owner who uses a Bulwagga... I can't get *no* respect... ;-)


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

Talisman66 said:


> Had this 2006 test but was not sure what the test variables were; sea beds, rode types, scope ratio, direct pull or offset....etc.


It's amusing to see *again and again *this comparative curve..

It should be noted that this curve has *NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED* by either SAIL or Yachting Montly but this curve in fact is a *FAKE MODIFIED CURVE *made by Rocna to prove that their anchor was the best :

This is one *NON MODIFIED* curve as published by SAIL magasine where it is obvious that both the Fortress, the Hydrobubble and the Spade anchors gave better holding than the Rocna...










João


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Please re-read..*



patrickstickler said:


> Ummm.... I think that's a stretch.


What I said is "He just lost his boat to a Bulwagga. ". That is a fact, Franklin posted it along with the photo of his boat. It's not a stretch. The fact is he was lying to a Bulwagga, with proper scope, when he lost his boat. The reality is he did not properly set his anchor, as I very clearly pointed out in my post, so scope and a Bulwagga is not always enough to be safe you must check the set of your anchor properly before leaving your vessel unattended.



patrickstickler said:


> Yes, his anchor was a Bulwagga, but in the same circumstances with the same practices applied, the results could very likely have been the same with any anchor.


Yes of course, did not suggest other wise. Because he did not properly check how well his anchor was set or properly back down on it he had no idea if his boat would hold in that location or not. It had nothing to do with the anchor. ANY anchor that folks become too overly comfortable with can be a dangerous one. Any anchor!



patrickstickler said:


> Your comment essentially asserts that "if he had used some other anchor other than a Bulwagga, he wouldn't have lost his boat" which I find to be a rather unsupportable conclusion.


Sorry but my post asserts nothing even close to that. My post is about not getting overly comfortable with your anchor, even a Bulwagga, as I see many on these boards do.



patrickstickler said:


> Even the boat owner doesn't make such a claim, and seems to suggest that the problems were due to the holding conditions and usage, and not to any fault or shortcoming of the anchor.


Again, NEVER made such a claim and I never said if he was using a different anchor the results would have been different. Read my post again and you'll see that.

He DID NOT properly set his anchor and he admits this to be his problem. Any anchor not properly set is a risk even a Bulwega, Rocna, Spade, Manson Supreme or Raya.

I would almost guarantee that if he had properly backed down on that anchor using lots of reverse thrust he would have found out that it was not set and he could have re-set it and then held fine. The problem is, as I stated, Franklin thought his Bulwagga was a self setter.

I'm sorry but there is no such thing as a self setter and if someone believes a manufacturers hype then.. well.... How do you know if you are actually set if you do not thoroughly test the hold with upwards of 80% reverse engine thrust? You don't...

My post was in response to your comment:



patrickstickler said:


> Bulwagga Marine Anchors, the world's most dependable boat anchor


IMHO quotes like this can mislead owners to a level of over confidence and reckless behavior, like not setting the hook properly.

To say any anchor is the "world's MOST dependable anchor" is deceitful, and misleading at a minimum. These claims have NOT been scientifically proven with data to back it up.

If a drug manufacturer were to make a claim like that they would be paying out hundreds of millions in fines for false and misleading advertising if they did not have the actual scientific data to back up those claims.  An anchor can be the difference between life or death just as a drug can...

Rocna, Manson Supreme, Raya, Spade, CQR, Bruce nor Bulwagga can not make such a claim because there is no possible way to prove this. If you find a way to prove claims like this I'm sure the marine industry and insurance companies would love to have that data..

Personally I think most of the new generation anchors are better than the older gen but I really have no clue as to which one is the "world most dependable anchor"?

I currently use a Rocna based on much research, personal testing, and how it performed in my average bottom type for my sailing waters. I make no claim that the Rocna is "the worlds most dependable anchor" and would never even consider it. Like the Bulwagga is is a very good performing anchor, nothing more, nothing less....


----------



## lbdavis (Apr 23, 2007)

ANCORALATINA said:


> João


You know what this graph really tell me?

Don't anchor in New Brighton!


----------



## Talisman66 (Jul 18, 2007)

ANCORALATINA said:


> It's amusing to see *again and again *this comparative curve..
> 
> João


My point exactly. No to curves are definative as to what works best. That is why I wanted to ask sailors in the real world for thier personal experiences. What I understand sailors are using and comfortable with does'nt justify any of the holding charts. Please keep your real life experiences coming. thanks


----------



## patrickstickler (Dec 2, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> What I said is "He just lost his boat to a Bulwagga. ". ...
> 
> The reality is he did not properly set his anchor,
> 
> ... It had nothing to do with the anchor.


Your post was (apparently) in response to a discussion within this thread about the reliability of the Bulwagga anchor, and saying "lost ... to a Bulwagga" in that context suggests that the Bulwagga anchor contributed to the loss of his boat (whether you meant to assert that or not).

If you believed the loss of the boat "had nothing to do with the anchor" then why name the anchor in that way, especially in the context of a discussion about reliablity of that particular anchor? If the point was about setting your anchor, any anchor, then why name the anchor in that manner?

I didn't wish to get into any kind of altercation, but I think it was fair for me to interpret what you posted as I did.

But I won't belabor the point further.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*What works in 80 knots*

Every year we get a blast to 60kts and every 3 years it hits 70 and every 5 to 7 it hits 80. The year I moved here it broke 100 but I was at the dock then and have been at anchor for 10 years.

Out here there's no second chance. Every good blow sends a pack of boats to the beach (a lot of rock walls) and even this year - very light - we've lost 3.

The year it blew 72 here (March - funny month to get it) it was 3am and I heard ka-krash - ka-smash on deck (I sleep in forepeak and yes - I can sleep through a pitching bow that lifts me and drops me a good 6 inches between snores) and I went out on deck and saw my clubfoot had billowed a little over a foot in diameter and had become a wild waving stick. I went below and put on welder's leathers - gloves, chest protection, motorcycle helmut (funny sailing gear I suppose, but it helps to be ready for an impact) and crawled to the bow about a foot behind the wild stick, checked the sheet - good and tight, but not tight enough to keep the club foot down, so I grabbed some spare anchor chain and waited for it to hit the deck and then jumped on it - wow - that was a ride.

Crawled up to the tack and threw the heavy anchor chain over it, seized some line and got it under control. Meanwhile 4 - 6 footers were busting over the bow (in a protected harbor - what fun) and by the time I got back to the cockpit I was pretty soaked.

I usually have a pretty warm fire going and stoked that again, changed clothes and figured since it was nearly dawn I'd stay up and do cockpit anchor watch. My dingy stores over the cockpit, under the mizzen, so you can sit there under a hard shell, out of the rain, with the cabin doors open and get a pretty good flood of heat coming out of the interior.

Had a smoke and looked around....oooops...we had dragged 200 lb Danforth (thick metal low tensile style) and 700 lbs of chain about 50 yards with another 100 to the rocks. Not a good feeling.

I looked around and saw a mooring ball that was normally 40 yards to my stern was now 10 yards off the port bow. I went back down below and got my wetsuit on, retrieved 200 feet of some 1 inch line, secured the line to the bow cleat (semi-soaked again), went back to the cockpit and prepared to dive in if I dragged any further. I surf and 6 foot waves are easy enough to deal with and I can board the stern easy enough.

I sat there and waited for dawn. With the club foot down and no wind resistance I didn't move further but did notice I was at the edge of where growlers coming across the harbor were soon becoming breakers on the shoal behind me. That explains why I was getting so much over the bow.

I also dropped my Bruce although by the time any scope paid out I would have been in breakers and I doubt it would have done any good except slow down an escape. Just the same, more metal on the ground seemed the right thing to do.

In the morning a friend showed up and the harbor calmed down and I spent 4 hours lifting all the gear and resetting it. Lucky day it was.

Thereafter, whenever winds were predicted to clock over 40 I followed some advice I read somewhere ?Chapmans?Some Anchor book? and it goes like this.

Northern Hemisphere (or at least my area - S.F.) As the winds start to clock out of the S.E. and build, the storm has begun. They're still under 15 so you have some time to get this job done and it helps you sleep at night.

Take a second anchor and go 90 degrees off the starboard bow. It can be a light anchor, but it will certainly be well tested by the time the storm is over.

As the winds veer to the south you're in the fury of it. Go on deck and adjust the mooring lines and second anchor, putting most of the load on the second anchor.

What you've done is create a V between the mooring (or primary anchor) and the secondary and it works really well.

As winds veer SW the fury may still be going, but now the light anchor is taking nearly all the load. Sometimes I pay it out so I distribute the load, other times I want to know just how well a 25 lb bit of metal can hold 30,000 lbs in a ripping storm.

My Bruce (45lb) never failed me and after 2 years of that I have now adjusted to a tiny danforth - never failed me and its easier to get up after the show.

What I did do to my mooring is add another 200 lb Danforth by creating a loop of 1 inch stud link chain and draping the loop around the primary lead and dropping the danforth to form a catenary/weight below my mooring ball. I means that while my bow might lift the chain a little, it never has a chance for any prolonged lift that might upset the main danforth at the end of the line. Someone told me its called a Texas Tandem with an anchor at the end of the chain and another at mid chain. Whatever its called it works.

One ripper came through here and I dragged - the middle anchor only - whilst the anchor at the end of the chain acted like a pivot. Think of a watch hand and the center stays put while the end with the anchor on it veered north (storm out of the south) and then set and hasn't moved for 4 years.

Meanwhile with the second anchor down off the starboard bow - soon to become a V pull at the height of the storm, then well-tested as the boat points SW and is now solely on the second small anchor, I have found the bruce worked well - it would sit there and take it all - and the danforth half its size works well too. We have a mud bottom and that's a good start for either of those anchors.

What I have since done to that little rig is add a tiny 15 lb CQR to the end of the line and now have the danforth about 30 feet from the end. The result is that the CQR - next to worthless on a 30,000 lb boat, keeps the danforth from dragging too far before it resets. Additionally that CQR is absolutely the best thing in the world for finding chain from old moorings - it works like a grappling hook and the prayer is that if I ever do skate across the harbor it is sure to find something along the way. In bringing it up I have had to clear bar tables, long steel rods and once caught my own main mooring anchor chain which required a dive to clear it up.

That brings me to the danger of using second anchors off the bow. As the diurnal winds flip around each day you are sure to foul that second anchor with your main (mooring in my case) so as soon as the winds ease I pull the stern over the second anchor, easing the mooring enough to get there, and then cleat it off and let the tides lift if from the mud. It is usually far too well set to get up by hand. I have had it wrap the main mooring once or twice and that can be a nightmare requiring a dive in S.F. waters in January - enjoy - or you may have to severe the lines altogether. One guy in Santa Cruz lost his gorgeous chinese junk because of dual anchors fouling. You can't leave them down like that unless the tie point is below the swivel on the main mooring gear. If they foul you can lose all holding power as you slowly winch them together by spinning around creating a big ball of metal with no functional anchor in the mess.

The result is I have a lot of faith in my 45lb bruce (in mud) and a lot more faith than I ever thought I would have with a danforth. I have seen those things twisted into pretzels on some boats and never felt they were worth trusting, but so far this little 25 has done the job nicely, holding 30,000 lbs firm on the SW blow with 120 feet of scope in 15 feet of water in 60 kts of wind. Not bad for a 25 lb anchor.

In my bilge is a 60lb CQR I used for my first year out here; with 1/2 inch and 3/4 inch chain. I used to lift that up every now and then - what a bear.

But to be honest if I had to throw that out it would mean I was in some distant anchorage with no mooring or other tie point available and 80 knots blasting down with a sketchy bottom and only a panic attack would make me resort to that. Anything else and I'd be comfortable with the danforth below 20 knots, or up to 50 if it was mud and anything above 40 and below 80 with no mooring around, I'd be comfortable with the bruce if it was mud or rock as that claw is a pretty nasty character when it comes to finding crevices.

One thing I did learn was that corkscrew moorings are absolutely worthless. The big ones that are supposed to handle the larger vessels can't. Every year someone with a big boat ties to one that the harbor patrol set and every year they go blasting past me on their way to the rocks. The shanks snap or bend or ??? something on them breaks and I wouldn't trust them to hold anything over 10,000 lbs. Corkscrew moorings are worthless.

One of the best inexpensive mooring setups I heard of came from a fisherman who used to ply the coast from Santa Barbara to S.F. Take a 4 ft x 4 ft x 1/2 inch steel plate, weld a cross beam on it and put a 2 inch eye through the middle. As the vessel starts to lift the 320 lb plate plus chain the plate tips and dips into the mud and you aren't going anywhere. To me, that is absolutely the best way to design a mooring there is, especially if you bump that up in either size or thickness for larger vessels.

And always remember - if the chain links are the size of your shoe and the scope is 10 - 15 to 1 (mine is) you've got a good shot at making it through the storm as long as your bow gear hangs together as well. I always use a loop bridle and every 2 hours or so, go on deck and pay out a nip to change the wear point.

Some of the boaters here use thin chain or short scope and in the morning you can find them - sizing up the hole the rocks ate in the bottom of their boat.


----------



## Talisman66 (Jul 18, 2007)

Craig, thanks for sharing your experiences. I have to re-read the Texas Tandem part again.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

I have read a number of reports on the 2006 West Marine test.....they use a ~52ft. tow boat weighing 59,000 lbs. as I remember (more or less) to set anchors that would normally be used for a 35 ft. boat....isn't that correct? In my opinion that test was completely bogus....bogus...as in nonsense. First of all, only the new high price anchors did well. The old standbys (cheaper) plow type, Bruce type, danforth types wouldn't even set....that's got to be your first clue. Now, as far as I can tell, those three anchors, in some combination, are the standards the world over, but they wouldn't set or hold. This test was run by people who are trying to sell anchors. You can't sell a lot of plows, bruce, or danforth types...everyone already has these and when you do sell, the price is low. But if you can convince boat owners that they're going to loose their boat in the first serious storm, then you can sell lots of high priced new fangled anchors. Plot the price vs. the performance and you see that the higher the price, the better the anchor in the test. With that tow boat, it's a little like me trying to set a 5 lb. Bruce on my 32 footer. But that was a tow boat, geared down low. Just a little difference in how fast/hard you backdown is going to make all the difference in the world...and bias the results if you want to affect the outcome.

I am not a fan of Practical Sailing, but they ran a test in 2002 that is probably better representative of anchor performance. The old standards more closely matched the newer types. They tested a spade (Roca, Manson were not tested and may not have been around then) and the spade did actually hold much better, which supports the argument for the new types, but the performance differential was not as great as the 2006 WM test

In the 2005 WM catalog, they had a table on recommended sizes for various boats for the various types of anchors. The recommendations had all of the anchors relatively closely placed, and as you would expect, the bigger the boat, the bigger the anchor. Additionally, many of the fluke type anchors had lists of holding power for various types and sizes. And the holding power was a lot more than in the 2006 test. These tables and lists were eliminated in the more recent catalogs, and at least one of the newer catalogs has a statement by WM to effect they were surprised and had some questions as to the test results.

My bottom line is that the old standards work fine as always. The newer spade types do seem to offer better performance, but maybe not enough to rush out and spend lots of money for the average sailer. Also, the tests often forget the complaints about Fortress...they do bend (I've seen several myself) and because they are so light, I've seen complaints that they sometimes skip along the bottom rather than setting.

As to the fluke type anchors not taking a reversal of winds. Practical Sailor in it's 2002 tests, did some reversal tests (either 140 or 120 direction change...I don't remember which), and they found that most of the anchors, including the fluke types, readjusted to the change of direction without breaking out completely and most of those (all commonly known types) reset in a several feet if they did break out. (One WM fluke type on a single try was pulled 180 degrees, broke out and wouldn't reset because a clam had jammed in between the movable parts...therefore it wouldn't reset because it's action was disturbed. No other anchors were tried on the 180 degree test, and they didn't retry the WM fluke type minus the clam...but this seems to be adequate basis for people to say that they won't reset in a reversal. Are there other real tests out there, or is this just another old wives' tale?


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*A Different View of the Sail Anchor Test*

The Sail Magazine anchor test had more than one test per anchor. They tested all the anchors at three different locations with multiple sets, pulls and scopes and they then reported exactly what the results were. These tests were done on "HARD BOTTOMS" and they did not hide that fact. They needed a boat like the Shana Rae to get to their ultimate hold strength goal of 5000 pounds. You simply can't generate 5k pounds of thrust with a sailboat. Max thrust for my 44hp diesel and three blade prop is about 500 lbs+/- (data Michigan Wheel thrust calculator)..

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

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

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

While I agree with NCC320 that this test was very "flawed" or biased its just not in the same way he sees it.

IMO these tests were very biased, in favor of, when it came to the "tried and true" CQR & Claw but NOT their competitors. The testers/investigators went so far as to have "in-depth discussions" to figure out a way to get the Lewmar Claw and CQR to set better so they could at least get load test results.

Now bear in mind this test was ONLY a hard sand test so you can't translate these results to a soft mud bottom but the authors made it quite clear that these were HARD SAND tests not "pudding sets", something even a cinder block will do well in...

*Here's a direct quote:* *"The CQR is another tried-and-true anchor that yielded surprising results. The maximum load we recorded during our first three pulls on 5:1 scope was a very short spike up to 350 pounds, but most of the time we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom." 
*

Remember that Lewmar (Claw/CQR/Delta) is a HUGE advertiser and HUGE vendor to West Marine and Rocna, Manson & Hydrobubble were nowhere in sight and had spent basically ZERO ad revenue with Sail and were not distributed by West Marine at the time.

This to me sounds like they perhaps had to give the CQR a little "extra bias" by going slower than with other anchors and trying to "manually coax" it to set. How can anyone claim bias against the CQR or the Claw or the West Marine Performance 20 when they clearly gave them preferential treatment? West Marine went so far as to actually be honest and admit in print that their own West marine branded anchor basicalluy sucked at setting in a hard bottom. Bias??

This "extra coaxing" seems a little unfair if you are replicating test results using the SAME technique with all anchors to make it as fair as possible.

The results don't surprise me as I own a Bruce and a CQR and though they perform well they are not always quick setters (CQR) or high holding (Bruce). My assertion is that 80% of boaters never actually set an anchor and get very lucky using basically a "rope on a rock" in rather benign summer conditions. Remember hard bottoms are HARD to set in and this was not an easy pudding test liek many of the other anchor tests we read about.

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

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

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

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

West Marine still does NOT sell the Hydro Bubble though they did begin selling the Rocna and the Manson Supreme shortly after the tests because they were clearly impressed.

So let's recap:

1-They slammed one of their biggest advertisers & vendors while at the same time giving thumbs up to a company that still does not advertise with them and was not even sold by them at the time.

2-They slammed thier own product WM Performance 20 and praised one three they were not even selling a the time.

3- They gave preferential treatment ONLY to the tried and true old gen anchors but not the new gen.

Biased??

Just another perspective..

P.S. As for your cost / more margin argument. My Port Supply discount on a Rocna is roughly 15.5%. Yet my Port Supply discount on a CQR is 18.3%. What this means WM makes more margin on the CQR than they do on a Rocna as my pricing matrix takes me to a base level of profit margin with my Port Supply account.

Here's the killer! The Lewmar Claw is a 32% discount for me with Port Supply meaning the least expensive anchor they sell is also their largest margin anchor product!


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

Same test ----- different assessment. But then there are those other tests and real world experience that says plows, claws, and danforths work.

There's more money in selling a $560 Rocna at 15.5% + markup vs a $99 Claw at 32#+ markup. 

A Rocna looks nice but it's just too high in price (in my opinion). Also, the sharp points of the various spade types will need some time to see if they bend against rock (and I suspect that their good setting performance comes from the sharpness vs. the more traditional anchors). Heck, even Ancoralatina's scoop anchor looks nice, and perhaps needs some promotion.

The bottom line is for each sailor and his usage, do you really need to spend a lot of money for the latest, or will your old standbys continue to work well (as they seem to have for most people in the past)? The answer will be different for different people.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*CQR Users Beware*

You asked if anyone knew about inability of CQR to set?

Limited tests, but as I said (previous post) the 60lb CQR (30k lb ketch), was the only anchor that ever dragged (storm conditions) until the 200 lb danforth. My dink employs the 10lb CQR (above) and I have seen it skip right across the beach and never set. I have also had it set and had to snap line to get it out and come back at low tide to find it. She's a funny girl - once set she usually comes out if you are straight up, although she can hook chain better than anything and then its time to dive or cut loose. It does seem to grab reasonably well if you insure it is set. I have also seen it appear to be set and found the dingy 40 yards further south in a light wind - she's a funny girl.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Expensive...*



NCC320 said:


> The bottom line is for each sailor and his usage, do you really need to spend a lot of money for the latest, or will your old standbys continue to work well (as they seem to have for most people in the past)? The answer will be different for different people.


Nobody ever said the old standbys don't work well. They can work well, I used my CQR for 10 years, they just don't perfor at the same level as some of the next gen anchors.

I do all my anchoring solo thus I hate needing to re-set due to an anchor not setting on the first try. My CQR had a fairly poor level of initial set in some hard and very soft bottoms as well as eel grass when compared to some of my newer designed anchors.

Considering that I own or have owned two CQR's, a genuine Bruce, two Spades a Fortress, a Delta, a Supermax, and have had many Danforth's I'd say there is a reason I went looking for a better performing anchor.

The two best performers I have ever owned are the Manson Supreme and the Rocna. They both now have over 200 sets with a 100% reliability record. They set in inches like you are still tied to a cement pier. No otehr anchor has done that for me not even the Spades.

If my well used CQR performed anywhere near as well as my Rocna I'd still be using it as my primary anchor. The reality for me in my sailing waters is that is it just does not.

BTW the CQR 35 sells for $679.00 and the Rocna 33 for $499.00 & Manson Supreme 35 $449.00. Still cheap insuurance for a six figure vessel.

So far for me the Manson Supreme and Rocna's have out performed every other anchor I own and I own and have thoroughly put them all through the paces. When out cruising my family will often anchor three to four times per day. We have some tricky spots to anchor in up here in Maine on top of 10+ foot reversing tidal currents so each set has the potential for at a full 180 of not 360 by morning...

To spend $99.00 of a knock off that is not even heat treated when compared to the original is not something I'd feel comfortable trusting my boat to. Don't get me wrong my Bruce was the best setter of my older gen anchors but they really need to be up sized (one or two sizes this from a recent test by PS) to perform & hold at the same level of some other ancors. For those without a windlass this can get heavy.

Anchors are insurance. Do you buy the absolute bottom of the barrel insurance policy? Do you buy the cheapest dock lines or laundry rope from Home Depot? Do you buy the cheapest sails, bottom paint, mooring tackle, wiring, PVC or brass thru-hulls or do you do it right and buy Marine UL Listed bronze or Marelon? Everything on a boat is expensive....


----------



## Noelex (Jan 23, 2008)

NCC320 said:


> The bottom line is for each sailor and his usage, do you really need to spend a lot of money for the latest, or will your old standbys continue to work well (as they seem to have for most people in the past)? The answer will be different for different people.


A plough anchor certainly did not work for me. 
In the last year of full time cruising I have only seen first hand 3 boats that have been significantly damaged, all 3 were caused by anchor dragging incidents.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

There really isn't any way to "test" anchors that is completely fair to all of them and representative of their performance under all conditions. The type of bottom has a lot to do with whether an anchor sets properly. The wind/current have a lot to do with whether they reset properly, and most of the tests I've seen are just straight pulls without simulating a reversing wind or current situation.

I've dragged on a fluke anchor because it wouldn't reset after a current shift. When it was hauled up, there was hard clay blocking the flukes from moving. This is one major reason I don't like anchors that have moving parts. They usually require the motion to set properly, and if anything interferes with the movement of the parts, they don't set. That isn't to say they're bad anchors... but I wouldn't use one as a primary.

I've had a half a dozen boats on Bruces drag down on me... and seen how a CQR doesn't always set repeatedly.

My experience with the Rocna has shown it to have only one fault-it brings up about 20 lbs. of mud/sand every time. EVERY TIME. That says a lot to me about how well it sets when backed down on. It also sets so quickly and deeply that I've nearly dumped a crew member off the bow of my boat anchoring. I've never had that happen with any other anchor.

The two biggest faults I see with people anchoring out are:

*First, they often have ground tackle that is not properly sized for their boat.* I've seen 40' powerboats that mass over 20,000 lbs hanging on a 13 lb. Danforth and 1/2" line. I usually think to myself, where can I anchor that they can't drag down on me. Good ground tackle is a very inexpensive investment to protect your boat, and more importantly you-what is your life worth. If your boat drags at anchor in a bad storm, your life is at risk. 
*
Second, is poor anchoring technique.* As Maine Sail points out, many don't back down on their anchor to set it and are effectively lying to a steel rock on a rope. Most anchors are not heavy enough to sufficiently secure a boat without being properly set.

Remember, the force of the wind goes up exponentially, not linearly... so doubling the wind from 10 knots to 20 knots isn't doubling the force of the wind, but quadrupling it. 40 knots of wind is 16 times as much force on your boat as 10 knots of wind. If your anchor is sized for 10 knots of wind, it probably isn't going to do well in 40.

One complaint a friend had was that retrieving a heavier anchor like my Rocna 15 takes longer. In response, I said, _"How many times have you had to retrieve and try resetting your CQR?"_ and asked him how much more time that took than retrieving my Rocna did. Overall, having a good anchor that sets well on the first attempt as has been the case with my Rocna thus far, is worth the extra time it takes to retrieve it and a time saver overall.

BTW, trust me, if I ever have a problem with the Rocna not setting properly, I'll report it here...


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Anchoring and FORCE OF WIND*

Just a side note - where you said

"Remember, the force of the wind goes up exponentially, not linearly... so doubling the wind from 10 knots to 20 knots isn't doubling the force of the wind, but quadrupling it. 40 knots of wind is 16 times as much force on your boat as 10 knots of wind. If your anchor is sized for 10 knots of wind, it probably isn't going to do well in 40."

That's close, but incorrect (I am a wind gen guy and do the math daily).

The force of the wind goes up by the CUBE or to the THIRD POWER when doubling velocity. Actually the number is to the 2.7 power, but most folks round it to the CUBE or 3rd power.

That means 20 knots has 8 times more force than 10 knots and 40 knots has 64 times more power than 10 knots and 80 knots has 8 times the power of 40 knots or 64 times the power of 20 knots or 128 times the power of 10 knots.

So if you have 100 lbs of force pressing on a large vessel in an easy 10 knot breeze (not hard to imagine - 100lbs is peanuts but about right for a large vessel with some windage/freeboard etc.) and it pipes up to 80 knots you have 100 x 128 or about 12800 lbs of force on your large vessel.

A large vessel would be foolish to lie on chain or rode that had a working load of 5000 lbs. - very thin - as a mere 40 knot gale could easily drive forces to 6400 lbs and work or chafe that line to snap rather easily.

Think of it like this: you'd barely be safe with a 10,000 lb chain or rode and if it piped up to 80 knots you'd wish you had 2 or 3 down.

And if a vessel was so large it had 100lbs of force on in in a light 10 knots, then you can expect the chain/rode to be every bit of 20,000 lbs working load.

We've all seen the smaller "twisted danforths" and can't imagine what happened. Was it a rock or a storm or a welding torch?

A good blow and a big boat and a strong chain or rode is probably what happened or they had a beefy windlass and insisted that anchor was coming up or else and it was hooked on something really strong.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

kckclass,

What size boat would that be with 12800 lbs in 80 kts.?

Some years ago, 1986 I think, there was a series of tests run on the Columbia River to determine actual force on sailboats of various sizes. I came across this while I was searching out various anchor tests that had be run while trying to figure out a hurricane anchoring plan and while trying to make some sense of the 2006 WM test where we found in 3 sites, where one should be able to anchor, after multiple tries and special consideration for CRQ and Claws, that it was determined that traditional plows, claws, and danforth types wouldn't set or hold...only new fangled, high price things woud. Sorry, I digress....

My boat is a 32 ft C320, so I paid attention to that part of the chart. I think it went up to 63 kts., but had lots of data points at winds less than this. I plotted those points to see what 90 kts. would be on a 33 footer. That chart predicts 3,000 lbs. at 90 kts. That's less than above (and maybe difference is in boat size). Still 3,000 lbs. is a lot, and with the surging and slamming in a storm, your point of twisted danforths and parted rodes is well taken. The working strength of nylon lines/rodes is about 15% of breaking strength, but keep in mind that a line is made up of short 1-2 inch fibers twisted together in various fashion to get the necessary diameter. I know from experience with new lines in a number of storms, that the lines are permanently stretched (fibers slipping relative to each other) in 60-70 mph storms, so exposure to hurricane forces for long times could cause line parting.

Not trying to start something...just trying to understand the numbers you presented. I definitely agree with the overall concept.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Hmmm...lets see. I am a wind gen guy not a boat architect, but if your 32 footer had 3000 lbs in 90 knots, then lets call that 80 so it rounds to the same wind figures and assume the vessel was 36 foot to make up for slower winds, but larger vessel to come up to 3000 lbs. That gives us the same wind speed.

Now volume grows with the square of the radius, and we want 4 times (for about 12000 lbs) or about twice your radius. Therefore if your beam was 9 (on a 36 - usually 8 for slim and 10 or 11 feet for a really fat-boat), and the radius was therefore 4.5, the 12000 lb wind force would have to be acting on a radius of 9 feet (doubled) or about 18 foot beam (wow!) or something around 60, 70 or 80 feet LOA - perhaps more.

This makes sense since in our theoretical example, a 10 knot light breeze was putting 100 lbs on it. Now think about being dockside and having a light breeze that produced sufficient force to just about pull you off the dock. 100 lbs of force if you are not braced, could easily do that. In a light breeze that would have to come from a really big boat - probably 70 foot or larger.

That said, if the vessel was that large I bet the overall wind and wave forces would be even higher than 12,000 on such a vessel. Imagine if that puppy was bucking 50,000 or 100,000 lbs it could easily pull some torque above the 12,800 figure.

Then there are all the extras those large boats seem to get although some of the Swedish and Danish boats I've seen seem a bit sleek.

- bigger dodgers, added cockpit beams/scoops and foils for radar and antenna, bigger roller furling or even lashed sails on booms, more gear on deck and overall, much more windage.

Therefore, I would say that to get to 12,000 lbs in an 80 knot blow the vessel wouldn't have to be much bigger than 50 - 60 feet.

Rough guess...


----------



## LoTech (Sep 10, 2008)

Sorry for resurrecting this four-week-old post, BUT I just found it and am very interested in your comments about the Spade anchor vs the Rocna.

The surface area of a 44pd Spade appears to be quite a bit greater than the 44pd Rocna, which would indicate significantly better holding ability. Also, the Spade seems to have a sharper entry with more of it's weight in the tip. Wouldn't this mean faster setting and less pull force required for a deep set?

Wouldn't the Rocna flip over just fine without the "roll bar" since the tip is so heavy -- even quicker without the bar? The roll bar seems rather gimmicky to me. Still, the Rocna appears to be a stronger, beefier anchor. And much less expensive.

Anyway, I would be interested in your comments. Thanks.



Maine Sail said:


> Considering that I own... two Spades...
> 
> The two best performers I have ever owned are the Manson Supreme and the Rocna. They both now have over 200 sets with a 100% reliability record. They set in inches like you are still tied to a cement pier. No other anchor has done that for me not even the Spades.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

Surface area of the 44 lb Spade is 1000 sq cm
Surface area of the 44 lb Rocna is 1140 sq cm

Tip weight of the Spade anchor +/- 47% of the total anchor weight 
Tip weight of the Rocna anchor +/- 32% of the total anchor weight



LoTech said:


> Wouldn't the Rocna flip over just fine without the "roll bar" since the tip is so heavy


Without the BSH (_big stupid hook_) if the Rocna will fall upside down on the sea bed it will remain inverted and will not set..

João


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

LoTech said:


> The surface area of a 44pd Spade appears to be quite a bit greater than the 44pd Rocna, which would indicate significantly better holding ability.


How about a photo?

Rocna 33 Lb. & Spade S-80 =35 Lbs. The Rocna 33 dwarfs the Spade 35 in surface area and it weighs 2 pounds less. I can't imagine the 44 pound class is much different.











LoTech said:


> Also, the Spade seems to have a sharper entry with more of it's weight in the tip. Wouldn't this mean faster setting and less pull force required for a deep set?


No not in the real life situations! Anchor theory is nice but it does not always pan out in the real world. I have had my Spades not set on multiple occasions and the aluminum version only sets at about 80% on the first try. The steel Spade is closer to 90%+ first try. Part of the problem with the Spades, Delta & CQR are that the tip is three dimensional and the Rocna and Manson Supreme are one dimensional like a knife blade.

*Spade tip cross section:*








*Rocna tip cross section:*








*Manson Supreme tip cross section:*









Pulling three dimensions, likea Spade, Delta or CQR tip, into hard bottoms is significantly harder than pulling one dimension. Pound a traffic cone shaped item into your lawn, now try it with a shovel blade.. If shovels were easier to dig into the ground with a three dimensional tip that is probably how they would be designed.

IMHO, based on many years of experience with weighted tip anchor, you have been sold a bill of goods on tip weight. As long as an anchor orients well when it hits the bottom and the tip cross section is not "fat" it should set. The Rocna and Manson Supreme have set for me at 100% set on the first try, usually within inches. They also set in a hard intertidal area that I can drive my vehicle on. In this same location I dragged my CQR across the surface barely even marking it..



LoTech said:


> Wouldn't the Rocna flip over just fine without the "roll bar" since the tip is so heavy -- even quicker without the bar? The roll bar seems rather gimmicky to me. Still, the Rocna appears to be a stronger, beefier anchor. And much less expensive.


If it's a gimmick it's one that works. Again, I own and have owned the following anchors and used them extensively.

Spades (steel & aluminum), Super Max, CQR's, Fortress, Danforth, Delta, Genuine Bruce, Manson Supreme and Rocna. My opinions are not based on hear say they are based on real world use in some tough bottom conditions. If any of these anchors worked as well as I wanted I would never have continued searching. The only reason I bought the Rocna was because I bought a bigger boat. The Manson Supreme is an EXCELLENT performer as is the Rocna, which I currently use.

The bottom line is that the Spades are good anchors. The Manson Supreme and Rocna are EXCELLENT anchors.



ANCORALATINA said:


> Without the BSH (_big stupid hook_) if the Rocna will fall upside down on the sea bed it will remain inverted and will not set..


AncoraLatina,

Before you spout off about BSH's again please show us some REAL DATA on your anchor!!!! There are MANY, MANY happy customers using both the Rocna and Manson Supreme and I don't hear of too many with yours, not that they are not out there?

Buy yourself a digital strain gauge (with peak capture), a video camera and SHOW us something! Enough with the drivel and misguided speculation. Show us how your anchor performs!!

I don't doubt your anchor works but bashing your competitors makes you look as much like a jerk as it did for Craig Smith. Bashing your competition will only serve to alienate potential customers. Discuss your product on its OWN merits and please do not bash the competition. This is sales 101.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> AncoraLatina,
> Before you spout off about BSH's again please show us some REAL DATA!!
> ..... bashing your competitors makes you look as much like a jerk as it did for Craig Smith..


I perfectly know that the BSH works... no need for photos or videos (_or Strain gauge_ )...

This concept has been designed and patented by Peter Bruce, more than 60 years ago... No need to say that Bruce was an anchor specialist&#8230;

This concept was successfully used again by the Bügel anchor, before being COPIED by both the SARCA, the Rocna and the Supreme... (_and who the next one_?)

Although designed by Peter Bruce, he never used this concept. This BSH has two drawbacks:
-	1°) it introduce undesired weight at the back of the anchor - reducing the weight distribution at the tip (_reducing the setting ability_)
-	2°) it reduce the free circulation of seabed material (_without increasing the holding_) and all users of BSH anchors know they have to remove this material when retrieving the anchor (_lot of cleaning_)

Talking about anchor characteristics or about pro and con of one specific design is not « Bashing » the competition !..

I believe it is by far more positive to "*invent*" new techniques than endlessly copying old designs...

João


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

First, that would be HOOP, not HOOK. Second, if the anchor is designed with a BSH, not having one on it and talking about its performance without the BSH is ridiculous.

I still have yet to see any figures for the Raya anchors that you're the manufacturer of, or to see them mentioned anywhere but your website and your own posts on sailing forums.

BTW, most of the mud/sand that I see on my Rocna would be there with or without the BSH... it is there because the blade of the Rocna is shaped like a scoop, rather than a plow.



ANCORALATINA said:


> Without the BSH (_big stupid hook_) if the Rocna will fall upside down on the sea bed it will remain inverted and will not set..
> 
> João


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

sailingdog said:


> First, that would be HOOP, not HOOK. Second, if the anchor is designed with a BSH, not having one on it and talking about its performance without the BSH is *ridiculous*.
> .


*BUT.... *why are you taking my answer out of the context???..  I was answering the question:



> Originally Posted by LoTech
> Wouldn't the Rocna flip over just fine without the "roll bar" since the tip is so heavy


and I apologize for the mistake (hook/hoop). Please consider that I'm a poor foreigner.. who doesn't correct all orthography mistakes I read on the Forum..

João


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

ANCORALATINA said:


> Talking about anchor characteristics or about pro and con of one specific design is not « Bashing » the competition !..


Perhaps in your country calling something "stupid" is not offensive or considered bashing. In most countries calling something "stupid" is deemed derogatory and offensive.

*I happen to think you are stupid! *

How does that feel? Do you feel bashed? Does that statement make you feel fairly treated?

In all honesty I DO NOT think you are stupid and only use this as an example and way of isslustrating how offensive your statements are.



ANCORALATINA said:


> I believe it is by far more positive to "*invent*" new techniques than endlessly copying old designs...
> 
> João


You mean like your imitating design characteristics of other anchors? Like the scoop/Spade/Bruce shape, or a curved self launching fluke? Just what is "new" in the "invention" of your product?

Your anchor may be a decent product but you, the manufacturer, are doing it as much a disservice as Craig Smith did for Rocna. Please shut your BSM (big stupid mouth) and keep your offensive statements to yourself..


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> You mean like your imitating design characteristics of other anchors? Like the scoop/Spade/Bruce shape, or a curved self launching fluke? Just what is "new" in the "invention" of your product?


As it doesn't seems obvious for you, we can discuss the *ORIGINAL CONICAL SHAPE* of the fluke of the RAYA anchor, why we have designed it that way and what are the advantages of this specific shape over the spoon shape of the Spade and the Rocna, and the cylindrical shape of the Supreme, or the plow shape of the Sarca..

But as I do not want to transform this thread into a sales speech, if your are really interested to learn


> what is "new" in the "invention" of your product?


 send me a PM or contact me on my E.mail...

João


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Ancora—

I'm still waiting to see numbers on your anchors and how they stack up to the Manson Supreme and Rocna numbers....


----------



## Hudsonian (Apr 3, 2008)

If you keep your boats on a mooring you need to consider how you will store your anchors when they are not on the bow rollers. Boats with their anchors on bow rollers break away from their moorings when their mooring pennants chafe through on the bow mounted anchor. Anecdotally, around here it seems the greatest incidence is among those with bow hung CQR's.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Hudsonian said:


> If you keep your boats on a mooring you need to consider how you will store your anchors when they are not on the bow rollers. Boats with their anchors on bow rollers break away from their moorings when their mooring pennants chafe through on the bow mounted anchor. Anecdotally, around here it seems the greatest incidence is among those with bow hung CQR's.


We store a Delta and a CQR on our double bow rollers permanently, but we've never had that problem. Our mooring pennant doesn't come anywhere near the anchors. So it may be an issue with the geometry of some designs, but it's not a universal problem. Certainly worth checking out, though.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

Hi Main Sail...

This looks more and more as a *PERSONNAL ATTACK* &#8230;

This is *NOT FAIR*, as you perfectly know that, as an anchor manufacturer, I'm not allowed to speak freely... 

Numbers on my anchor:

- *15%* more weight on the tip than the Rocna, *68%* more than the Supreme (_as there is no BSHoo*P*_)

- Weight for weight, *30%* more surface area than the Rocna (_I don't know the surface area of the Supreme_)

We are new on the market, and we don't have more numbers that the Rocna had four years ago... just be patient!

You have full right to criticize the shape of the Spade anchor tip versus the one of the Rocna and the Supreme... but why are you not allowing me to talk about the Big stupid *HOOP*??..

But your comments are wrong...

You are only repeating what you have read on the sales speech of one manufacturer, without trying to understand...

Yes, it will be more difficult to dig a three dimension tip into hard bottom, if the tip of the tool will not move... You only forget that, when setting, the anchors are moving forward...

Go back to the beach... pull the Spade anchor on the sand and look... a open trench is forming behind the triangular tip of the Spade anchor and *NOTHING *will prevent the tip to enter freely, like the tip of the Rocna and the Supreme..

You criticize anchor designs... when I'm « *bashing my competitors *»&#8230; but:

Talking about the tip of the Supreme, it is also a wrong design and I can promise you that in the near future, you will see more and more bent tip like this one... 











Maine Sail said:


> Before you spout off about BSH's again please show us some REAL DATA on your anchor!!!!


Be patient&#8230; BSH anchors are a new fashion!... it's just a question of time before people try something better&#8230;

João


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

If the hoop works, it really isn't stupid... is it? Calling it stupid isn't helping you any. Currently, the Manson Supreme and Rocna are among the most effective anchors in a wide range of conditions, and if that is the case, the big hoop isn't stupid.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

ANCORALATINA said:


> This is *NOT FAIR*, as you perfectly know that, as an anchor manufacturer, I'm not allowed to speak freely...
> 
> João


Why can't you speak freely?? 

Last year I bought the Manson Supreme to replace my primary CQR anchor which I had used on my Tayana 37 for the past 20 years including one Cat 1 hurricane. As I gain more experience with it, I'm getting more confident in its ability to perform much better than the CQR. The worse conditions so far has been two nights in full gale conditions with gusts into the 50 knot range. No problem. One feature that I liked was the Lloyd's certification that came with this anchor. The construction and how well that anchor holds under extreme conditions is an important consideration and an independent evaluation by a group such as Lloyd's was one of many considerations in my selection.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

sailingdog said:


> If the hoop works, it really isn't stupid... Currently, the Manson Supreme and Rocna are among the most effective anchors in a wide range of conditions, and if that is the case, the big hoop isn't stupid.


Yes, both the Manson Supreme and Rocna are "*among*" the most effective anchors in a wide range of conditions, as all « new gen » anchors are...

Except that the good setting and the good holding characteristics are not a result of the BSH.. The BSH is only there to correct a wrong design...

The weight of this cumbersome accessory located in the wrong place of the fluke will diminish the tip weight (_worse setting ability_) and will also avoid the self cleaning action of the fluke.

Imagine a Rocna and a Supreme anchor WITHOUT the BSH (_but still self orienting themselves_) they will have a heavier tip and/or more blade surface area, giving a better penetration and a better holding...

This BSH is stupid...

João


----------



## LoTech (Sep 10, 2008)

Never criticize someone's beer, girlfriend, or anchor. Not necessarily in that order :laugher

Looks like I had things backwards. The Rocna has a larger surface area and a more streamlined tip.

The Raya appears to be an improvement on all the roll bar versions.












ANCORALATINA said:


> Yes, it will be more difficult to dig a three dimension tip into hard bottom, if the tip of the tool will not move... You only forget that, when setting, the anchors are moving forward...
> 
> Go back to the beach... pull the Spade anchor on the sand and look... a open trench is forming behind the triangular tip of the Spade anchor and *NOTHING *will prevent the tip to enter freely, like the tip of the Rocna and the Supreme..
> 
> ...


The anchor with the bent tip in the photo, what is that? It's obviously not the Raya. The shaft on your anchor is so far forward it's a bit disconcerting. I guess that's why there's two attachment points.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

lancelot9898 said:


> Why can't you speak freely??
> .


Why??, because I am an anchor manufacturer and if I criticize a feature of a competitive anchor I'm « *bashing my competitors* »&#8230;

Only non manufacturer are allowed to « criticize ».

João


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

How can you say that the BSH is to correct a wrong design, when it is clearly part of the design and the anchor functions as intended. Just because the Rocna and Manson Supreme require a rollbar, it doesn't mean that they are stupid or wrong designs.

Some might say that having the stock so far forward on the fluke is a stupid design, because on a short scope, it makes the anchor far more likely to pull out...










Last I checked, the only criteria for whether an anchor design was stupid or not had a lot more to do with its effectiveness. The Rocna and Manson Supreme are very effective anchors. Calling the rollbar a BIG STUPID HOOP is bashing their design pretty much any way you look at it. Just because you chose to use a different design, doesn't make the rollbar stupid or ineffective.

Again, I still see no numbers and very little in the press or on the internet about the Raya or Raya Tempest anchors.

I'd also point out that the Rocna 15 I use has 1030 sq. cm. of surface area... compared to the 994.5 sq. cm of your 12.5 kg Raya. You claim that your anchors will save 1/3-1/2 the weight off a competing anchor design, yet the anchor your website recommends as replacing my 15 kg Rocna only has 800 sq. cm of surface area... so, exactly how is this going to provide equivalent holding power to my Rocna 15??? The 12.5 kg model would be far more comparable, and that's only a 17% savings, with less surface area on your anchor.





















ANCORALATINA said:


> Yes, both the Manson Supreme and Rocna are "*among*" the most effective anchors in a wide range of conditions, as all « new gen » anchors are...
> 
> Except that the good setting and the good holding characteristics are not a result of the BSH.. The BSH is only there to correct a wrong design...
> 
> ...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

ANCORALATINA said:


> Hi Main Sail...
> 
> This looks more and more as a *PERSONNAL ATTACK* &#8230;
> 
> This is *NOT FAIR*, as you perfectly know that, as an anchor manufacturer, I'm not allowed to speak freely...


Personal attack? You're the one using derogatory terms and bashing your competition rather than discussing other issues. While you can't sell your product here you CAN post videos and load test results with strain gauges on your web site which you have not done.



ANCORALATINA said:


> Numbers on my anchor:
> 
> - *15%* more weight on the tip than the Rocna, *68%* more than the Supreme (_as there is no BSHoo*P*_)
> 
> ...


You know darn well what numbers and comparisons we want. We want head to head tests in controlled conditions, with bottom density or sediment density data, using accurate test equipment.

Alain Poiraud (sp), the Spade inventor, made a HUGE deal out of tip weight, just as you are, and his anchor, the Spade, just does NOT, in my personal experience with it, set better than the Manson Supreme or the Rocna so tip weight is NOT the be all end all and you know it.



ANCORALATINA said:


> You have full right to criticize the shape of the Spade anchor tip versus the one of the Rocna and the Supreme... but why are you not allowing me to talk about the Big stupid *HOOP*??..


There you go again using derogatory terms about your competition. You can talk till your blue in the face but please refer to it in terms that are polite and non-derogatory. Clearly you did not read what I wrote? I did not criticize the tip of the Spade by calling it a "big stupid triangle" or a BST. Did I? I used photographs and words to EXPLAIN why it probably does not set as well as the Rocna or Manson Supreme. Nowhere in my post did I use derogatory terms, such as the word STUPID, when discussing the Spade.

Furthermore I am a CUSTOMER not a MANUFACTURER. I have every right to analyze the products I own. You are an anchor manufacture who thinks selling his product includes bashing another. You did it again in this post and quite out of context I might add.



ANCORALATINA said:


> But your comments are wrong...
> 
> You are only repeating what you have read on the sales speech of one manufacturer, without trying to understand...


Really? I am wrong on what? Perhaps you don't know me but I base my OPINIONS on real world actions and results of products I own, noting more, nothing less. If you noticed I have never made ANY statements about the potential performance of your product as I have NOT used it.

Your anchor MAY even perform better than a Manson Supreme or a Rocna BUT we have yet to see you perform any legitimate testing, with videos and the use of strain gauges to support your claims. Because your anchor has never been tested, and then published in a quasi-legitimate anchor test by a third party, you are in need of some accurate testing to show the world how well your anchor really performs. Calling other manufacturers products "stupid" shows potential customers ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than the fact that you have little in the way of manners..



ANCORALATINA said:


> Yes, it will be more difficult to dig a three dimension tip into hard bottom, if the tip of the tool will not move... You only forget that, when setting, the anchors are moving forward...
> 
> Go back to the beach... pull the Spade anchor on the sand and look... a open trench is forming behind the triangular tip of the Spade anchor and *NOTHING *will prevent the tip to enter freely, like the tip of the Rocna and the Supreme..


Can you please re-state this? I can't really understand what you are getting at..?



ANCORALATINA said:


> You criticize anchor designs... when I'm « *bashing my competitors *»&#8230; but:


I criticize anchor PERFORMANCE of anchors I OWN and then try to explain a reason why the poor performance might be. I don't use derogatory terms and I am NOT a manufacturer I am a customer. Again basic salesmanship 101 does includes selling YOUR product, but does NOT include bashing and using derogatory terms when discussing your competition. You clearly don't get this.

I am actually trying to help you but you are being to belligerent to see this, just like Craig Smith was. Look at Craig's sales compared to the Manson Supreme... Nuff said..



ANCORALATINA said:


> Talking about the tip of the Supreme, it is also a wrong design and I can promise you that in the near future, you will see more and more bent tip like this one...


Wow you and I were both involved in that thread and not only did you steal that photo but you then stole my photo posted above in this thread and photo shopped it fairly badly. I will say it again bashing your competition buys you NOTHING. ALL anchors can bend or break if subjected to enough load. PLEASE REMOVE MY STOLEN PHOTO IMMEDIATELY FROM YOUR PHOTO HOSTING SITE !!!!

Here is a direct link to the original photo stolen from Cruisers Forums:
Bent Manson

Here is a direct quote from Manson anchors regarding that anchor.

"The bent nose is a simple case of extracting a "stuck" anchor with excessive force. Its not quite a case of the unstopable force meeting the immovable object but we know the loads involved and it is well beyond what is expected of them."

Please remember the Manson Supreme actually has the Lloyds of London certification for super high holding power. Even Rocna does not have this certification. Lloyds does not just put their name on just anything.

Are you actually claiming your anchor is un-bendable or un-breakable cause that might sell some product..



ANCORALATINA said:


> Be patient&#8230; BSH anchors are a new fashion!... it's just a question of time before people try something better&#8230;


No argument from me there. Anchors will always evolve and there will be better anchors than the Manson Supreme or the Rocna. Yours may be one but unfortunately you are spending more time alienating customers than gaining them..


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

> How can you say that the BSH is to correct a wrong design, when it is clearly part of the design and the anchor functions as intended? Just because the Rocna and Manson Supreme require a roll bar, it doesn't mean that they are stupid or wrong designs.


Please read my previous answer:

Anchor function is *TO HOLD* and for holding an anchor must *SET*

The BSH doesn't help setting, on the opposite; this additional weight, badly located at the back part of the fluke, will reduce the weight distribution at the tip of the anchor

The BSH will not increase the holding; this additional weight will reduce the ratio Surface area/weight, and thus reduce the holding.

The only function of the BSH is to position the anchor on the setting position, but this could be done without a BSH and all related drawbacks.



> Some might say that having the stock so far forward on the fluke is a stupid design,


Except that having the stock so far forward will:
-	reinforce the tip 
-	add more weight on the tip... Stupid???



> Again, I still see no numbers and very little in the press or on the internet about the Raya or Raya Tempest anchors.


Not seeing numbers in the press doesn't make the anchor stupid or ineffective. If you look back four years ago, it wasn't either numbers about the Rocna or the Supreme... It just means that the anchor is new on the market.



> I'd also point out that the Rocna 15 kg I use has 1030 sq. cm. of surface area... compared to the 994.5 sq. cm of your 12.5 kg Raya.


Please don't compare oranges with apples, but compare anchors of the same weight i.e.: 30 kg Rocna (1695 sq cm) to the 30 kg RAYA (2005 sq cm) (18% more)

João


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

ANCORALATINA said:


> Please read my previous answer:
> 
> Anchor function is *TO HOLD* and for holding an anchor must *SET*
> 
> ...


If the anchor isn't oriented correctly, it isn't going to set properly. The rollbar forces the anchor into a position where it can set properly. So, exactly how is the rollbar not helping the anchor set??? 



> Except that having the stock so far forward will:
> - reinforce the tip
> - add more weight on the tip... Stupid???


Yes, but if you're on a short scope, having the stock so far forward on the blade will almost guarantee that the anchor will break free. A good anchor design won't have that kind of failing... since there are often situations where anchoring on a short scope will be required. So, yes, the design is stupid, under certain conditions.



> Not seeing numbers in the press doesn't make the anchor stupid or ineffective. If you look back four years ago, it wasn't either numbers about the Rocna or the Supreme... It just means that the anchor is new on the market.


True, but I don't see you posting any numbers either... either here or on your own website. That either means that the numbers aren't very good or you don't have the equipment to test the anchors. In either case, it isn't very reassuring.



> Please don't compare oranges with apples, but compare anchors of the same weight i.e.: 30 kg Rocna (1695 sq cm) to the 30 kg RAYA (2005 sq cm) (18% more)
> 
> João


I'm not comparing apples to oranges. *Your own website says that the 7.5 KG anchor is the equivalent of a 15 kg anchor from someone else...* I'm just asking how a 7.5 kg anchor with 800 sq. cm. of surface area is going to possibly be comparable to a 15 kg anchor with 1030 sq. cm. of surface area.

As Maine Sail has pointed out... you're not answering any questions about holding ability with any facts... and all you're doing is bashing the competition. *If you have any numbers, I'd like to see them. If you had any video of the Raya or Raya Tempest setting, I'd like to see them as well.* Apparently, you've done no real testing with the Raya or the Raya Tempest from what I've seen.


----------



## LoTech (Sep 10, 2008)

This comparison clearly shows the Raya to have a greater surface area for a given weight, just as advertised, and obviously it will retrieve less bottom material. I look forward to reading some reviews.



sailingdog said:


>


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Yes, I am aware of that. My question to AncoraLatina was how their 7.5 KG anchor with 800 sq. cm. could possibly be comparable to a 15 KG Rocna that has 1030 sq. cm, or over 25% more surface area. *The table clearly states that a 7.5 KG RAYA is the equal of a 15 KG anchor of another brand. *

Either their table of recommended equivalents is way off base, or their statement that they can give you the equivalent anchoring power with 1/3-1/2 the weight is a lie. Clearly, the anchor most comparable to the Rocna 15 kg. is the Raya 12.5 kg, with 994.5 sq. cm of area, but it is only 1/6th lighter.

I'd rather have the heavier Rocna with its well proven setting and holding power. There are some situations where weight of the anchor makes a significant difference in its ability to set.

BTW, greater surface area alone doesn't necessarily equate greater holding power. It also depends on the anchor's ability to set, the design and orientation of the flukes, and quite a few other factors. The Fortress anchor, which is aluminum, has a lot of surface area for a given weight, but in a lot of cases, it doesn't set properly, because it doesn't have enough weight to dig in properly. Also, in a reversing wind or current situation, it may become unset and not get a chance to reset due to its light weight and the fact that it can "plane" underwater if the boat gets moving at all.



LoTech said:


> This comparison clearly shows the Raya to have a greater surface area for a given weight, just as advertised, and obviously it will retrieve less bottom material. I look forward to reading some reviews.


----------



## NICHOLSON58 (Feb 22, 2009)

I have four 70# (or greater) anchors on board. The Delta rides on the bow on 300 feet of #4 chain. The others are used according to need and the bottom.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Another CQR bites the dust*

Last week I had the pleasure of pulling a small boat off the rocks that had a CQR in mud that dragged. Does anyone have similar experiences? By Bruce holds, my danforth is a fighter, but is this problem common with CQR - skipping on mud? sand? whatelse? - and if so, should I dump the 60 lb I was going to keep as the big boy on my 46 ft.

Frankly, I have no time for metal that drags. Give me a digger - and my little 45 lb bruce has never failed me even in 72 knots.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Maine Sail said:


> Alain Poiraud (sp), the Spade inventor, made a HUGE deal out of tip weight, just as you are...


You're not aware you are dealing with Alain Poiraud again? By either alias or proxy. I had thought it was obvious.


----------



## St Anna (Mar 15, 2003)

I was very happy with the Bruce in fine silt/sand/mud. In coral (or larger chunky ground), the Bruce dragged. We went for a (ridiculously oversized) Mansen Plough- this has a long shank. It never dragged, even in 50+kn & 3:1.

An amigo just got back from 4 years about the Pacific and he went for the Rocna and loved it. He used to have our favourite Mansen Plough and they dragged with it, so I really listened to him.

I think we have all seen incredulously poor anchoring techniques and all think we know best - so I guess its what works for you, works for you!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Craig Smith said:


> You're not aware you are dealing with Alain Poiraud again? By either alias or proxy. I had thought it was obvious.


That explains a lot! Just out of curiosity do you know the surface area of the CQR line and the original Bruce anchors..?

I don't doubt his anchor probably works but he is just rude and has no manners. A bit like Alain was...

P.S. Craig I would like to thank you for toning down your approach on the forums. It has not gone unnoticed. It seems Drago and Alain/Raya are out in full force again though..

P.S.S. When can we see a video of the "monster pull" you guys did with the Rocna and HUGE vessel applying 6000++++ pounds of pull to a Rocna. You don't need to actually link to it but I don't see it on your site. You ALL need more testing, with equipment, and videos on your sites!!


----------



## AE28 (Jun 20, 2008)

*Brian/Cruisingdad...*

Given any thoughts to creating a new _ANCHORS/ANCHORING _subset under _Politics/Religion/War/Government_?

Paul


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I think you get more fanaticism with anchors than you do with religion, war, politics or government..


AE28 said:


> Given any thoughts to creating a new _ANCHORS/ANCHORING _subset under _Politics/Religion/War/Government_?
> 
> Paul


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*oooops - cqr score in a truck pull*

First; on the subject of the thanks - thank you for listening. I am honored. I was the nerd every one of you had in Jr. High who would SPRINT to science, set up the bunsen burners before you got there, dish out the chemicals or flowers or steel balls and ramps (a favorite) then go to the backroom and whip the science teacher in 20 hands of blackjack....finish my lab when I was $5 ahead and help clean up before I was late to the next class. Bottom line - I like data.

Second - oops - data can be skewed. Here I was - bashing the CQR and I am an anchor out and after 2 wines and 5 teas (lots of hot water between 10pm and 2am for me) I go to my dingy (small boat) on the dragging cqr but it wont budge and the 'raft' to my home at anchor is 30 yards off the beach. I anchor it in deep water and tail a line so the tourists don't mess with me oars matey...anyway, I can't go home if the dingy is 30 yards at sea!!! - unless I want to wade in up to my waist.

So I pull the trip line from the beach and the cqr wont let go!!! Oooops - it aint draggin tonight baby - so I go back to the bar and pick a tuff looking 19 year old busser - HERE IS 10 BUCKS - BREAK THE LINE (wind was in my favor) OR BUST THE ANCHOR OUT - WHATEVER - WIN THE PRIZE - and 10 minutes and 400 - 500 lbs of squat and muscle and he comes back empty.

So - 20 lbs cqr? Great lunch hook in the right place. Here it was a sand bottom.

So I get a friend with a ford truck, lace 150 yards of line to the hitch and he eases it fwd and poof - we got it out.

But when it busts out he almost rolls away. That thing had 1500 - 3000 lbs on it so a tiny cqr CAN hold quite well in the right conditions.

...gotta work on the trip line -


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Maine Sail said:


> That explains a lot! Just out of curiosity do you know the surface area of the CQR line and the original Bruce anchors..?


No, although you could measure the CQR easily enough from Lewmar's download-able CAD. Not particularly interesting in my view, as neither has fluke shaping comparable to the Rocna.



Maine Sail said:


> P.S. Craig I would like to thank you for toning down your approach on the forums. It has not gone unnoticed. It seems Drago and Alain/Raya are out in full force again though.


Right. There may of course be such a person as João Nodari, but if so he's acting as little more than a proxy for Alain Poiraud; "João" references all the same resources that Alain used to, holds identical opinions, writes and formats text in exactly the same way, participates in all the same French-speaking forums Alain used to, and so on. We know for a fact that Poiraud is behind Ancora Latina and the "Raya". He is living in Brazil and apparently the Nodari name is something to do with his family.

I believe Alain is entitled to his opinion, but concealing his identity is a bit off, if I do say so myself.



Maine Sail said:


> I don't doubt his anchor probably works but he is just rude and has no manners. A bit like Alain was...


The "Raya" is of course the 4th (5th?) iteration of Alain's "Oceane" / "Sword" design, the budget version of the Spade.
http://www.spade-anchor.com/-Sword-Anchor-.html

As to the "Raya" in its current form, it is essentially the Sword with a few Rocna-inspired improvements, including correction of the positioning of the skids, the thicker toe plate, and an identical shank-to-fluke angle (formerly unique to the Rocna). Peter just sent me two pages of critical technical analysis of one he's been playing with.

Funnily enough, the Raya is very similar to early concepts for the Rocna, as Peter tried for sometime to avoid the use of the roll-bar while also avoiding the inefficiency of dedicated tip-weight inserts. However, he concluded for a number of reasons that the idea was not reliable enough, and is satisfied that the roll-bar is the superior solution. With input from Peter, who's in contact with me from Patagonia, we could expand on this if anyone's interested.


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

Maine Sail said:


> P.S.S. When can we see a video of the "monster pull" you guys did with the Rocna and HUGE vessel applying 6000++++ pounds of pull to a Rocna. You don't need to actually link to it but I don't see it on your site. You ALL need more testing, with equipment, and videos on your sites!!


Hey what 6000 lb? Please! Get outta here... We put over 6000 *kgf* on a Rocna 25 (that's ~ 14,000 lb-force) in best holding clay at 10:1 scope... 

I did take some video, and below is a still, but there's not a lot to see other than taught rode and tugboat wash. But this testing was conducted for SHHP classification by RINA, and all that was done was according to what they wanted... their dictates... nothing to do with us.
Essentially you need to demonstrate that the anchor (various sizes) across three different bottom types (clay, sand, and mud) can consistently hold either at least 4x that of the same size "standard stockless", at least 2x an HHP anchor (CQR, Delta, etc), or at least 1x another SHHP anchor...

So it wasn't an extensive comparison test and I wouldn't portray it as one. We used a Manson Supreme (because it has Lloyd's SHHP) in addition to stockless types. Suffice it to say the Rocna easily exceeded the requirements.

I can't publish the data because RINA are still doing their thing and I don't have permission to, and I'm not sure whether anything useful in this sense will be made public or not. Stay tuned.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*now thats data*

when I see a trawler hauling on an anchor - thats data - probably a pretty awesome bit of metal on the ground.

the question(s) becomes:

1. too bad there wasn't a torque meter on that line - while props and RPMs are one way to do it, you were totally set up to really get a great measurement of what that anchor could take - perhaps next time.

2. always remember the CQR I hate because it drags and skips before setting, is also the same tiny 10lb piece of metal that took a truck to pull it free.

it would seem the old advice "SET IT GOOD" whatever the make, is still applicable.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

There was a strain gauge on the hawser in that photo... Craig actually says:


> We put over 6000 *kgf* on a Rocna 25


No anchor works well if not properly set... *however, what anchor you have often makes a difference in how difficult it is to get it to properly set. *

IMHO, the Rocna and Manson Supreme set better than most of the older designs. Last season I got to use the Manson Supreme 35 lb. which a friend bought based on my suggesting they upgrade their ground tackle after they dragged one day.  I'll still take my Rocna over the Manson, but either is a far better choice than what most people are using.



kckclass said:


> when I see a trawler hauling on an anchor - thats data - probably a pretty awesome bit of metal on the ground.
> 
> the question(s) becomes:
> 
> ...


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

Craig Smith;
[IMG said:


> http://www.petersmith.net.nz/images/remote/rocna-rina-test-pull.jpg[/IMG]


Graig,

What type of splice was used around that shackle? A back splice where the 3 strands are separated *prior to *making a U-turn thru the shackle or an eye splice (without the metal thimble) keeping the rope intack passing it thru the shackle and then making the splice?? We had a separate discussion of this on another thread in the seamanship section, but when seeing that picture I couldn't pass up on that question.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I don't believe that is a three-strand laid line, but an octo-plait line instead.


lancelot9898 said:


> Graig,
> 
> What type of splice was used around that shackle? A back splice where the 3 strands are separated *prior to *making a U-turn thru the shackle or an eye splice (without the metal thimble) keeping the rope intack passing it thru the shackle and then making the splice?? We had a separate discussion of this on another thread in the seamanship section, but when seeing that picture I couldn't pass up on that question.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

After looking a little closer you're right dog. Your other comment about no anchor works well without proper setting is right on, but what I'ld like to see is more testing on how well the anchor resets with reverse wind flow and current. My 35 lb CQR attached to a Tayana 37 did a wonderful job in that regard and even held up well in a Cat 1 hurricane, but a year ago I switched to the Manson Supreme and feel that it is better even though much more experince will be needed to gain full confidence on the reset feature.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Maine Sail - Craig I would like to thank you for toning down your approach on the forums.





Craig Smith said:


> There may of course be such a person as João Nodari, but if so he's acting as little more than a proxy for Alain Poiraud; "João" references all the same resources that Alain used to, holds identical opinions, writes and formats text in exactly the same way, participates in all the same French-speaking forums Alain used to, and so on. We know for a fact that Poiraud is behind Ancora Latina and the "Raya". He is living in Brazil and apparently the Nodari name is something to do with his family.


I'm not used to answer *PERSONAL attacks*, made by *poorly educated competitors*...

...but I just want to make a small exception to thank *Craig SMITH* for spreading the rumour that the Raya anchor has been designed by the same designer than the very good "Spade" anchor...

We are sorry that we can't use this very positive selling point, but please Craig, continue to spread this rumor on all forums; we are more than pleased to be compared to the best « New gen » anchor&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.

João NODARI


----------



## Craig Smith (Jun 21, 2006)

So the policy is to be deny-deny-deny? 

Give it up João / Alain; it's been a successful charade for a while I'll conceed, but with people and friends receiving Rayas and having dealt with "Alain Poiraud" (their words) in Brazil, it's confirmed for sure now who the force is behind things.


----------



## scottyt (Jul 19, 2008)

well my way over sized dansforth works, but a 33 lb anchor on a 8 k lb 27 boat works.

but if anyone wants to send me a new anchor of a new design i will do an extended test of it and return in in 2 years


----------



## mgiguere (May 22, 2004)

I have what I think is the best anchoring system for a 37 ft 14,500 lb boat. 20 lb Bruce with 20 feet of chain to a swivel whereby you hook a Danforth to the swivel at 90 degrees, followed by chain for catenary then rope. I've used it as a "mooring" and confidently left the boat for a week in between stops.

Moe


----------



## mgiguere (May 22, 2004)

Actually the swivel is at the 40ft mark.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I think you've been remarkably lucky. Your ground tackle system sounds remarkably undersized IMHO.



mgiguere said:


> I have what I think is the best anchoring system for a 37 ft 14,500 lb boat. 20 lb Bruce with 20 feet of chain to a swivel whereby you hook a Danforth to the swivel at 90 degrees, followed by chain for catenary then rope. I've used it as a "mooring" and confidently left the boat for a week in between stops.
> 
> Moe


----------



## mgiguere (May 22, 2004)

I've been in all kinds of stuff and done well so far. The boat has little windage at 10 ft beam and not that much freeboard. This is in excess of what is recommended for this boat. Sure, the tackle can always be heavier, but in 24 years, I've not had any problems.

Moe


----------



## Keldee (Jun 23, 2008)

We have a 35 lb CQR for our 31ft Douglas as main anchor and I maintain that if you take the trouble and patience to set it properly a CQR is not to be beaten.Having said that anchor choice seems to be very personal and cruisers tend to defend their choice strongly.You can have the biggest bestest anchor in the world but if you dont know how to deploy it,its not much good.I was often amused by people sitting at the bow watching thei anchor rode in a blow!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Proves (a little) what I said about anchors*

TWO anchors in line, with about 120% - 150% of the DEPTH OF WATER between them (so you only have to lift one at a time). Put the heavy one in the middle and lay the first leg of chain in between (no swivel required in there - just a swivel at the top by the bow)...then 5 to 1, 7 to 1 scopeetc. (I have 10 to 1) and it holds unlike anything I have ever used, doesn't foul and you can go a little lighter in weight on each so its easier on the back and the windlass.

A friend with a huge 65 foot wooden boat (30 tons plus) couldn't pay his marina bill. He was so afraid of moving his vessel to the anchorage and had insufficient gear for any sort of 40 knot plus blow.

But he did have some fairly good chain and a 65 lb high tensile, thin plate danforth (usual style) and we found a rusty old 180 lb low tensile, thick plate danforth. We put the light one at the end of the chain - 40 feet of 3/4 inch chain - then the heavy 180 - then 100 ft of 1/2 inch chain and a good new 1 inch swivle up by the bow which he has two nylon rods with eyes attached to it and dual floats on each line (I have suggested a chain backup, but he doesn't use it) - in 20 feet of water.

A good 40 with 60 gusts summer gale came through that lasted on and off for 3 days and he never budged. He's getting used to being at anchor now and loves it.

While I know folks in marinas (especially with wives and dogs that need walking) think anchoring out is foul business, I've been off the grid for 9 years now on the hook and would never go back to the dock. The two anchor system has been the only system that has never failed me with my 15 ton 46 foot ferro ketch/cutter...with low freeboard...the only ferro (according to the harbor master) that has any potential...sweet girl she is and tough and solid as tungsten.

However, even when I used a single 180 lb danforth and 170 ft of chain or nearly 10 to 1 scope it failed in a 70 knot blow and I dragged 100 yards. Fortunately it was 200 yards to the rocks and the storm petered out in a few hours and I threw more metal on the bottom to lock me in that night.

Whereas the 2 anchor system, with both anchors lighter than the 180 lb, when configured in line as described above, has held in 80 knots thereafter and it never moves.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Yes, but if you really require both anchors any significant percentage of the time, IMHO, your anchors are seriously undersized.



kckclass said:


> TWO anchors in line, with about 120% - 150% of the DEPTH OF WATER between them (so you only have to lift one at a time). Put the heavy one in the middle and lay the first leg of chain in between (no swivel required in there - just a swivel at the top by the bow)...then 5 to 1, 7 to 1 scopeetc. (I have 10 to 1) and it holds unlike anything I have ever used, doesn't foul and you can go a little lighter in weight on each so its easier on the back and the windlass.


----------



## robtriangle (Feb 10, 2008)

*Anchor tests*

Any recommendations on review articles comparing CQR, fluke and claw?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Undersized anchors are easier on the back*

The reason I originally started using this method was that when it howls here in the morning there are boats on the rocks - literally. Every winter all the best gear, strong anchors, beefy new harbor installed moorings - you name it - they all break and snap. Alaskan storms pounding the San Francisco area get like that and it must be much worse in Alaska, Canada or Washington.

The first year I was here I used a 180 lb Danforth - low tensile - thick plates - with 3/4 inch chain on a 12 ton 41 foot ketch. I woke at 3am, had dragged, began throwing metal and chain over to stop me (it did) and it scared the crap out of me.

I read everything I could on moorings, bought the books, library time, the web sites - everything (scared is a good thing when it comes to anchoring). The next winter I simply put more scope and heavier metal down and it was a royal pain to haul it up to move the boat and reset in various places of the harbor. It took me 4 hours of winching and grinding to lift all that chain and anchors up - back breaking work.

Then a whopper blew through here and it dragged - hmmmpf!

So I tried the method I described above, which lightened the lifting of each anchor (they were a bit smaller - but there was TWO in line) and that made getting it up easier (its always nice when getting it up becomes easier - right?) and that worked. The whoppers came again and I didn't drag - hmmmm - just might work.

I also found that the lighter gear was much easier to lift - nice bonus.

Then I said "I want to sleep at night when these storms are blasting through." and after 5 years at anchor, I have learned to sleep even when the bow is pitching and tossing me 6 inches up, then down and I can still snooze. But to do that I have to:

a) keep a little Enya on the radio/CD player to hush the storms - it works for me

b) Eat well that night - no coffee

c) Keep the foulies and helmet and steel toe boots (see below) ready for the dash on deck if something breaks loose and starts to flog - rare these days as I double lash everything pretty tight, but one year I had the club foot come undone and billow out and had to go seize that down by throwing large chain over a whipping, dancing boom (fun stuff) while wearing a motorcycle helmet and welding leathers and steel toe boots (full protection - a football uniform with mouthpiece would have been appropriate for this task), and then diving on the boom with 30 feet of 3/4 inch chain in hand, chaining it down, then lashing it down while rollers broke over the bow - a really fun 80 knot night that was - oh boy.

d) and then for the ultimate in protection I started throwing out a second super-light anchor - as quoted in anchoring books "90 degrees off the starboard bow as the storm begins from the SSE, which will clock to the south, then west as it dies off" - which puts a V into the gear and I cinch the light anchor tight so the mooring heavies are barely doing any work.

This has given me a chance to test super-light danforths, my 45 lb bruce (a favorite) and the 60 lb CQR.

The bottom here is mud and sand.

Typically I use all line on the light anchor since it is only down for 1 night and I pull it up after the storm - a must - or it will wrap with the mooring chain and create a nightmare ball of metal down below that can send your boat to the rocks - which happened to a guy who did this and failed to lift the second anchor immediately after the storm.

Let me tell ya - that little 25 lb danforth in mud on 1 inch line holding a 12 ton 41 footer in 70 knots is a real jewel. TOTALLY undersized (but the mooring with the tandem set up is there to protect me). Nothing makes me happier and sleep easier than having two different anchor rigs out so if one fails the other is there and I can start 'pouring metal and chain over the side' if so required.

That rig buys me TIME, which one friend who's boat went to the rocks says "You have no time to catch yourself if your anchor breaks free and you drag." He was on board when that happened to him and he almost lost his boat - fortunately he hit a sandy beach and since its a protected harbor, breakers were only 4 - 6 feet and his boat survived. With all the rocks around here, he was plain lucky.

Anyway, in the morning when the storm subsides, I have to LIFT that little 25 lb danforth out of the mud and it isn't the weight that's an issue - that's a piece of cake - its the fact that it really dug in during the storms. Typically I tie it to the stern, ease the boat so I am directly over it and then let the tide lift the boat and pull the anchor while I check emails and sip coffee. When I look out and see I have spun, I know the danforth is free and I haul it up, clean the mud and lash t in the shrouds on its line, ready to kick over anytime I have a storm warning. Works like a charm. It also means I get to check the 'wear' on the anchor rode after pulling it up and its been fine, but I still usually adjust the anchor bowline so I change the wear point in between storms.

So in a 50 - 70 knot blow I can go out on deck, look at that line pulled tight on the little danforth - pay out a nip or two (2 - 4 inches) on the mooring bridle (every 2-3 hours) so I move the wear point on that and when I go below, to my wood stove (don't laugh - that turkey sized oven I made from an 80 gallon stainless fuel tank keeps me warmer than any diesel stove I have ever owned and the fumes are zero compared to burning diesel) strip, dry off, hang the gear over the stove so its toasty warm when I go back out in 3 hours, crawl into bed, set the 3 hour alarm and pass out.

If anything breaks I will hear it - I am right next to the bow.

If anything breaks I have a back up in place - so I have time to save the boat.

If anything breaks I have plenty of metal ready to throw. Since I surf and have surfed in much worse conditions (30 footers) than the 6 foot breakers in the harbor, I also have the wet suit ready and if I had to jump in to fix something or lash to another mooring or ??? I can certainly do that too, but so far haven't had that need.

I have a saying for the harbor master here - I WILL NOT GO TO THE ROCKS - and every year 5 - 10 - 15 boats do.

The most important thing is to sleep at night and every few hours, go up on the bouncing, splashing deck (the thrill ride) - and make sure everything is tight, working, balanced load, and watch with amazement at that little danforth doing a great job.

Would I recommend it alone? NO WAY. Its a back up lunch hook doing a 7 course dinner meal of a job and I love testing it that way, just as I used to test the bruce (claw) and cqr.

Plenty of folks here have said they use this or that method and most of them, even one guy who was a 'hired TransPac Gun' has seen his two boats go sailing without him several times and he uses thick chain and lots of heavy metal - but for whatever reason - it just doesn't hold or isn't reliable.

The system I have used has served me well for 10 years. I don't drag. I get to sleep at night and the gear I have to lift afterwards is light and lifts pretty fast once the rising boat (tide) breaks it free - which is a huge plus compared to my first few years at anchor.


----------



## roline (Apr 7, 2000)

The cal 9.2 came with a danforth and 10 ft of chain, but had problems with holding the bottom. I sprung for a 22 lb bruce that came with 20ft of chain. Never an issue even when the winds change direction. I've seen the demos at the boat shows of the "new" anchor designs, but the bruce stowes nicely and deployes quickly and has held without issue. We raft up on overnighters and can have 4 boats on the one anchor. I still prefer the bruce design.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

roline said:


> The cal 9.2 came with a danforth and 10 ft of chain, but had problems with holding the bottom. I sprung for a 22 lb bruce that came with 20ft of chain. Never an issue even when the winds change direction. I've seen the demos at the boat shows of the "new" anchor designs, but the bruce stowes nicely and deployes quickly and has held without issue. We raft up on overnighters and can have 4 boats on the one anchor. I still prefer the bruce design.


A friend uses a Bruce and on their way down the ICW they had trouble setting it because mud got lodged in between the three prongs and it would not reset. Only happened once and other times it did great. IMHO the resetting feature of the CQR is one reason why it is still a favorite among cruisers even with its poor showing against the newer designs. I'm using one of the newer designs now and with more experience with it, I'm gaining more confidence but the CQR is still available should the need arise.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

*Anchor test by YACHT magazine!*

A new anchor test has been published in the July Issue of the German Nautical magazine YACHT.

Unfortunately&#8230; in German!..

Just a few notes:

-	Anchors have been tested in three different sea bottoms: Sand - marl/gravel - Mud.

- They have been using a Bavaria 38 sailing boat which is equipped with a Volvo engine D1-30, 20,1 kW / 27,3 hp, not powerful enough to give strong pulls, they have set the upper limit to 250 daN but they say that it is in the range of effort that can be measured with force 5 to 6 wind..

-	Two winners with four stars are the Kobra II (198 euros) and the Supreme one ( 387 Euros)

- The Rocna achieved only 2 stars for a price of Euros 440&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.

- Supreme ; In sand hold up to the limit 250 daN - in marl/gravel hold up to the limit 250 daN and set uncertainly at 150 DaN in Mud.

- Rocna: In sand hold up to the limit 250 daN - doesn't set in marl/gravel - set badly in mud

No other "personal" comments..

João


----------



## therapy23 (Jul 28, 2007)

ANCORALATINA said:


> João


You never answered when I asked for one of your anchors to use at Anclote where my Delta won't hold.

I still say if you send me one and it works I will pay for it and endorse it for you. If not I will front the shipping to return it.

Otherwise I guess it will be a Manson or Rocna.


----------



## ANCORALATINA (Aug 24, 2008)

therapy23 said:


> if you send me one and it works I will pay for it


 You know, anchors are like religion...

Or if you prefer like « therapy »  : if you want to make a good therapy, one very important point is that you have *TO PAY *for it...

Please send me your check and as soon as I will receive it, I will send the anchor... 

If, first you want to know what users think of it, have a look at: Testimonial


----------



## therapy23 (Jul 28, 2007)

ANCORALATINA said:


> You know, anchors are like religion...
> 
> Or if you prefer like « therapy »  : if you want to make a good therapy, one very important point is that you have *TO PAY *for it...
> 
> ...


Well.........that is a few.
And started by a mod for a vendor. Not saying anything wrong with that, just not for me.
How many have you sold to date?
Is there an outlet in the US?
Have you been included in any of the tests by magazines etc?
I also know when starting a business some actually want to get their product "out there". Usually it is with free samples. I am not asking that at all. To me, fronting one for test and approval is a sign of confidence in a product.
I bet when some large group tests your anchor they don't guarantee it's return afterward, but I have not tried to have an anchor tested so it is only what I bet happens.
I also forget sometimes that in this day and age most cannot be trusted to pay on a "hand shake". I am not one of those but there is no way for you to know that. Sorry for my assumption.
As far as religion goes, everyone that I have met that did not like the one they had and was shopping for another actually went and tried others out first, then they paid.

Is there someone you have sold to in West Central Florida that I could contact to arrange a meet up with? I could test theirs at Anclote if they were amenable and it was the size for my boat.

Anyway, I usually am a tough customer (I expect advertised performance) and am tired of being ripped off. I find I need more of a safety net for *me*. And even with those I deploy I still lose out frequently.

And I know I said I can't trust my current anchor so why worry about trusting my boat to one that is most probably better? Hmmmm. I guess because the one I want is the one on top. Not in the top 5 somewhere.

Sorry for the ramblings.

Best of luck.


----------

