Here is what Ebb is talking about....
thats a nice spiffey anchor ya got there granny....
but how long will its stay so shiney???and sorry folks.....but there is alot to a name...theres something about the name"manson" that makes me think twice about anchors....welllllllll,jus' stab me in the back!!!!! everything here is just so helter skelter!!!!!
The deal with the ROCNA......
Thanks Craig,
Pretty good, picking it up even with my challenged spelling..... :)
I think I have figured out the angle on the Rocna. If it ever breaks loose, a sales rep pops up in diving gear and re-sets it before you know you are dragging.... :D
Rocna, baby, one mo' time
OK, Dr Rocna,
I'm going to chew on this one last time.
The Manson Supreme "has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping and is intended to receive SHHP status." Manson says it's the only production anchor in the world that has this (yet to occur) honor.
I'm not sure what kind of warranty this implys and have not a clew what SHHP means.* (Super Hot Holding Power) The photo accompaning this statement shows a s.s. Supreme. If it is made from 316 it wouldn't be as tough and unbendy as Bisplate 80.
I would assume Rocna is waiting for their 'official recognition' from this Buzzword assurance company?
I sure hope that Rocna is included in Praktical Sailor's second part soup test. It's something, anyway.
Rocna makes one mention of the steel plate material their anchor shanks are made from: QT100. (ASTM A514S)
It is considered a low alloy steel. It forms well, flame cuts well, welds great with the proper electrodes, and has high strength NOTCH toughness. (assume that's the hole where the shackle goes) It's used for grader blades, backhoe buckets, pallet forks, safes, perforated seive screens and the bottoms of sport/fishing boats that need 'abrasion resistence' from rocks. Strong stuff.
That it is "a quenched and tempered high tensile steel extremely resistant to the twisting and bending forces present when the anchor is under load." is no doubt true. But this language connected to the next paragraph:
"Your Rocna is assembled by a team of trained specialists. Skilled workers precision-weld every component together using techniques that make the joints the strongest parts of the anchor. Welds and edges are hand-detailed until the finish is such that you'll be proud to display one on your boat."
Well, I dun know, a red flag just went up! Whotzis a pricey kitchen range or a suit? ....I guess this is the real world!
My point is, this is a shill outside a strip joint trying to get me to come inside by pumping up the charms of the ladies. Actually, what really bothers me is too many words that are just too full of merchandising - I'm on the "construction" page and I want DETAILS not HYPE. No way to evaluate the product - so I have to evaluate the source. But the source is messing with my head. Since reality is so limited, I have to base my evaluation on faith. What a way to get burned. Yes, I have.
Like someone on another board mentions about your site's video, the Rocna is not exactly subjected to the same drag test as the other anchors. We have to ASSUME the anchor has dug in and cannot be dragged along under the surface of the sand like a plow with the SUV. Your video is coy about real world anchoring in water by showing us computer enhancements that show us nothing. I have no sound with my monitor - so I'm not commenting on the narrator - who looks like a very nice but rather serious person.
You don't show your anchor setting and digging-in in any kind of bottom.
The Manson Supreme evidently is made of very similar alloy, whether the slot design makes it weaker than a solid shank is conjecture - unless you have tests to prove otherwise. Yes?
I would like to see independant tests that these shanks are resistant to bending under load. What load? Have tests been done? Like to see one lodged in coral or rock. Maybe the shank will hold up to "bending forces" but the unknown and uncelebrated alloys of the other parts of the anchor might not. I must be too stupid to care.
I wonder about the stand-alone pipe bow being strong enough and also if it'll get hung up on something. It is a kind of hook in its own right.
You do say. tho, that the pipe is galvanized inside. I wonder if the pipe and the rest of the product is in the same alloy range as the shank.
Would also like assurance that smaller anchors (your site testimonials are nearly all boats over 40' that use heavy Rocna's) that lighter Rocnas will set and dig in with smaller and lighter boats at the other end.
Will your 25# Rocna on the end of certain length of rode and chain, let's say in 20 or 30 feet of water, connected to a 5400 pound 26 foot full keel boat SET and DIG as the advertising suggests?
My life depends on it. :rolleyes:
It's a treat to talk with anybody about a product. Specially a new anchor AND the mysterious and inexact science of anchoring. I'm glad you have a great team there and make the best anchor possible. Reflected in the price we must pay. Anchors are such an important piece of equipment that, for me, they are all already in the public domain. The evolution of the bow, you have pointed out, proves the idea is accepted by the puiblic.
*Manson assumes their reader knows what being reviewed by Lloyds means.
Do they test this anchor? What do they test? What is SHHP? It's not obvious and enters Hypeville because it is obscure. Guess I'm dumb again! Rocna raises a good point that if the anchor shackle inadvertently slides toward the blade it could pull the anchor out from set. The 'dual' shank is problematic BUT NO PROOF has been published by its critic(s).
'Group order' proposed on the Sailing Renegades forum
FWIW,
There is an offer for a 'Group order' proposed on the Sailing Renegades forum.
If anyone is interested in ordering a 'Rocna' (there Craig, I even spelled it right).
Here is the link (up to %20 off).
Link to discussion on Sailing Renegades
The first couple pages are talking about a new boat someone is buying, the anchor discussion is near the end.
Willy Ronca and the end of the Rode
OK, talking to self again:
One of the UNanswered concerns the "gentleman" had was with the design of the Rocna and Supreme hoop. Sarca points out in this thread that the Sarca hoop is protected from entanglement with line and chain AND also reinforced by this feature. You will notice the SARCA has a piece connecting the shank to the hoop.
ROCNA's scenario of a boat drifting over the (Supreme or Sarca) 'dual' sliding shackle shank and pulling the shackle inadvertantly down to the blade end and pulling the anchor out of set
is also a conceivable possibility with the Rocna (and Beugel). IF the line or chain gets down into the unprotected space between the shank and the hoop the Rocna could also be pulled out! Worst-case possibilities are ENDLESS and Murphy's law always applies.
If you have a design flaw it isn't going to be mentioned on the product literature pages. If you were a new owner of a Rocna or Supreme you could weld on an anti-fouling feature of your own with rod or smaller diameter pipe in the form of a 'V' from the shank to the hoop. It would lock in the free-standing hoop strengthwise. Not an insignificant cost. You'd be doing what Sarca has already done.
Sarca is in no way a plow design like the CQR. This is an irresponsible description of the anchor by a competitor. The Sarca's blade is thinner (by examining the pictures - I've never seen a live one) but certainly appears to be designed specifically for cutting into a seabed (bent downward point) - and the Sarca video shows this to be happening pretty well. There also seems to be a minimum of editing in the video.
Here is what I think may be an important observation. See if you agree, ok?
The Sarca is concave on the bottom with a sharpened point in front that has a definite down turn. This, to me, looks like that when you pull on the shank the anchor HAS TO DIVE IN. The Sarca has to dive because its blade can only be pulled DOWN into the seabed. Could be said: the anchor SLICES into the bottom.
OK, let's take the spoon shaped version where the bottom of the blade has a belly. I could argue that as this Rocna anchor is pulled into the seabed it will round out much like taking a SCOOP out of a melon with a tablespoon - the shape of the spoon follows itself into the solid
and follows itself back out again. Kabisch?
Now, if you turned that spoon over and tried to cut out a piece of melon that way, I'd say it can't be done. Not easily. Suppose the Rocna (I don't know this, ofcourse, none of us do) gets pulled in as shown in the video BUT if pulled further by the SUV or the boat FOLLOWS ITSELF BACK OUT AGAIN? There is NO video showing what happens after set. Hmmmmm? You know, because the bottom of the anchor is spoon-shaped. (More or less, we are comparing two similar but radically different products) Maybe it doesn't happen in normal anchoring situations... but in a storm?
Guys and Gals, consider this.......ok?
Craig Smith could argue that this doesn't happen in practice. Show us.
The melon-spoon metaphore may not be wholey accurate because the 'radius' of the blade may be too large for scooping to actually occur. Sarca shows their reverse curve digging in deeper when tugged (which would happen in a real world situation). Can't argue with that concept, right? Intermittant tugging on the Rocna might not be pulling it DOWN into the bottom but tending to be pulling it UP because of its shape.
It would be most revealing to see 'new generation anchors' in a side by side comparison, using the Hylas Spade for datum. Sarca also needs to completely reveal their anchor parts alloys to the public. As does Rocna and Manson. Nothing, nothing should be taken for granted these days. And imco especially with a new not yet established anchor. Sarca's been around since '93. With 'knock-offs' you can assume less attention is payed to methods and materials.
If I had heros in manufacturing and marketing of marine products. Garhauer is at the TOP of the list. With more familiarity with these 'new generation' (Rocna takes the credit for this phrase) anchors - I may lean toward the small shop inventive energy of the Sarca as a counterpart to the Garhauer family in the States. It's a matter of rightness and righteousness. Right? Oh, AND the right price.
Rocna literature quote: "Practical Sailor and Cruising World [US buzzword mags - ebb] show that New Generation type anchors consistently out perform more traditional designs. Picks, claws, and plows are a thing of the past, and we are proud to present the most refined and effective - yet affordable - new generation design - Rocna"
Yess, yes, again, this may be true - Rocna is a slick looking anchor and this statement is unabashed merchandising. But this statement does NOT say. and can NOT say (as of 2/2006), that P.S. and C.W. have actually tested any Ronca alone or against or with these OTHER new generation anchors. Right? And whether it is AFFORDABLE depends or your pocketbook - and the value of your life. :D
[Craig amos, suh,
If you want to add some more to the information fray - and witness some more exquisite uninformed commentary - type in "yatiwa anchor" on google where you may find the www.ybw.com anchor FORUM where Hylas holds fort (the Spayed and Oceane Anchor inv.)and, wuduknow, so does craig rocna smith....
We'll git to da truit, someday, folks!!! HEARSAY IS OFTEN THE WORST KIND OF INFORMATION YOU CAN GET. or.... WHOSE MOUTH IS TALKING?]
>sotto voce< psssst, craig, you still there? :)
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
THANKS REX FOR YOUR MESSAGE BELOW HERE. Won't respond until I have some time. Also leaving your name on the Forum index might entice some folks in to read it befor it gets buried! Ole breakwind ebb
PS TESTING APRIL '06 edition
Page 10 of the April, 2006, Practical Sailor mag begins their test (in mud) of the following anchors:
Anchor Right Sarca
Bulwagga
Danforth Deep Set II
Davis Talon XT
Fortess FX-23
HydroBubble
Kingston Plow
Rocan 15
Spade A80
Super Max Pivoting
Super Max Rigid
XYZ
PS recommeds the Bulwagga, Davis Talon XT and the XYZ, which also gets a "best choice" star.
Yes, Ebb has issues with PS testing, but this is a comparative test without manufacturer hype. Grass and coral bottom testing should be done next :D
P.S. anchor tests (Ap '06)
Here are a few observations off the top:
Looks like P.S. photographed most of the hooks they used in their test for the article. It's amazing how the smooth silvery computer enhancements in the catalogs washed right off.
Rex's SARCA came away very well indeed and should lead to a change in the name to
SARAMCA. (sand and rock and mud combo anchor) Maybe somebody knows what percentage of mud anchoring there is in american waters. It makes this anchor imco look like real choice bower for the Ariel. Three anchors for the price of one (dividing its cost by 3) makes its expense a little easier to bear! Yes? It doesn't depend on weight for it to work. It looks, at the moment, like an ideal and versatile small cruiser hook.
A letter writer in the same issue quotes L. Francis Herreshoff (paraphase):
'The human race took millennia to develop a plow design that could be pulled easily through the earth, and some damned fool made an anchor of it.'
Referring to the CQR, which has faired rather badly in other testing. P.S. included a knockoff Kingston Plow in this group. It also dragged. But it is not clear if it ended up on its side when buried in the mud or stayed upright as we are to assume the HydroBubble does.
Danforth style anchors aside, nearly all of the rest fall into two groups. Ones with 'spoon' shaped blades, and the others with 'plow' shapes. This is a misnomer. Rocna literature also misnames their rival SARCA as a plow. But, excuse me, plow is the Kingston, the Davis Talon and the HydroBubble.
The mildly concave blade of the SARCA with its down pointing entry doesn't make it a plow. It's designed to dig in and down when pulled, while the heavy CQR (for example) is meant to part the earth and make a furrow. And this might be happening under steady pull at shorter angles with other plow shaped blades in mud.
In mud the spoons did not perform as well, especially in the 3:1 scope set and hold comparisons. Talking into my hat, I think the SuperMax, Rocna may have lifted off their set and had a ball of mud in their blade like we hear the Bruce has trouble with. What do you think?
The Hydro is a lightweight plow that keeps its blade at the correct attitude. Wonder how this anchor would perform in deeper water where its weight would be more neutral. IE there is something to be said for a heavy weight anchor you can be sure has a better chance digging in.
The all stainless XYZ. I would also call (like SARCA) a technical anchor. Its superb performance in mud means to me that it dives when pulled. I assume that the SARCA behaves similarly. It's not clear that XYZ will do that in or on other bottoms.
What are your conclusions? I will shy away from the distinct plow shapes AND most spoon shaped blades as I get closer to getting the ground gear together for 338.
last look at choosing a new anchor
Straight line pulling tests that Practical Sailor just published produces scewed results and imco (and many others) are pretty useless. If you were perched over a muck bottom in your Triton or A/C just about anything would keep you stuck there for awhile including a cinderblock or a CQR resting on its left side.
Most real world testing still favors our old standbys CQR and Danforth in ideal bottom conditions. We now have many new choices. And many serious cruisers are moving to the technibal hooks. The pointy spoon shaped anchors led by the French Spade are center stage. If anything can be garnered from straight pull testing it is that the spoon (like the claw and bruce for certain) shaped single blade MAY fill with a piece of the bottom (a piece of mud for instance) and keep the anchor from deeper set. This seems especially true for short scope (less than ideal) anchoring.
THE P.S. TEST SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST TESTED USING TUGGING AND SLIGHT ANGLE CHANGES. I feel these funky tests injure the reputation of Practical Sailor.
Hooped anchors are an attempt to improve on the single tine anchor design by rolling the anchor into its intended position for penetration. On flat firm bottom. The shank or arm of the anchor is attached at the back of the triangular blade, in the middle, and nearly at the front in a variety of designs. The Buegel, I believe the first production anchor with the hoop, may have been all along the ideal technical new age anchor. Their web site has a short essay of their philosophy. Personally, I'm one who has to touch things to understand them.
[IF WE CAN'T HAVE DECENT TESTING THEN LETS AT LEAST SEE THEM ALL LINED UP LIVE TOGETHER!}
While the Buegel is eveidently used succesfully in the Med (and as one wag put it: by mostly German cruisers) it may not be strong enough (I have no idea!) to be used as a storm bower for a small world cruiser. (The galvanized Rocna lookalike is a chunky hook.) I like the Beugel's spare, sleek look - I like its near straight blade with no apendages - it looks like it will slice into nearly any bottom the ocean can come up with like a knife! And when disengaged from the bottom will end up clean in the rollers. Yes???
WE ARE ALL STILL WAITING FOR REAL WORLD IMPARTIAL TESTING TO BE DONE COMPARING ALL THE NEW ANCHORS. IT MUST BE DONE NOW1 That's why this marina muck soup test thing is so uncalled for! Until then we are left with the hype and b.s. of the manufacturers and unsubstantiated opinion.
OK, now,
on to CHAIN and the anchor to chain connector....
{Sarca may well have in the physics of theie slotted blade and shank something quite unique. I really believe that if you tugged on a Sarca it would dive into the sand or muck whatever bottom. It (I'd have to see it and compare) is a concept departure from all the others.
From my perspective, which is heavily esthetic, the design has to be cleaned up and made less buzy. Sailors believe they are more sophisticated than the powerboat guys. If you are going to woo them from their awkward bowers and bulbous bruces, you gotta have a sexy simple form.)
straight shots and deep sets
craigsmith,
Just because you guys have decided that a spoonshaped anchor is going to work better than any other doesn't make it so. You had your inspiration, you followed thru on it, and here you are in business. There is no superior nature of a concave fluke - unless it is supported by testing. And I'm saying here that all anchors we have mentioned here should be compared with each other in an all-out knock-down deep set fight - befor I spend my bucks based on anybody's unsupported statements.
That 'most anchors slowly increase their holding power over a 12 or 24 hours period' - is not relevant. The subject is spoon shaped anchors. My argument is that spoon shaped blades will take their bite, their set, and will not go deeper naturally because their shape AND THE PULL ON THE RODE will not let them do that.
I believe this statement is in part supported by the video you have on your internet site. Because you do NOT show any pull on your anchor once it is set. Right?
It seems possible that once a Rocna or a Spade or a Max or a Bruce take their set they might dig in more solidly - but by design they cannot dig in much deeper. Because it is not in the nature of their design to do so. My specific point here is unsupported by any testing. BUT what testing we do have seems to indicated that spoonshaped anchors in general have a problem staying set. That is my impression from the tests I've read.
There is also from craigsmith here NO proof that a straightshaped Buegel blade does not set deeper and better. There have been no side by sides and therefor you can't intimate your anchor is better. Well, of course,
YOU CAN SAY IT, BUT SAYING IT DON'T PROVE A THING.
Nor can you say your anchor is better than a Supreme because it is fabricated out of brake-pressed pieces and is more expensive to produce. Again, irrelevant, the point is whether the anchor can do its job well. There is nothing in what you say that proves a radiused straightbladed Manson Supreme cannot set deeper and better than a dog-legged Rocna spooney. What testing of methods and materials, unless it is in plain name calling, do you propose that makes one anchor better than another. "Nyah, nyah, nyah, you don have no 'core design principals,' and you have 'laminated flukes' too! Yuck.
By the way, the design of the Manson Supreme makes the anchor as radically different from the Rocna as the Sarca, no similarity exists except in the roll-over-bar.
And you can't just say that the Sarca convex blade will not do as well as a Rocna because it is somehow inferior to the spiffy concept shape of Rocna. NO PROOF.
Along with other good attributes an ideal anchor should set quickly and once set not pull out or drag but set deeper and deeper still in nearly all bottoms if made necessary by the conditions at the samson post. No excuses.
I want to see your anchor pitted against all comers in whatever sailboat tonnage range agreed upon. Hopefully sailboats under 35' The sole purpose of the test is ease of set, short scope long scope hold, deep set ability, dial testing to pull out or drag and any other, like a veering test that would tell the tale about each anchor in a working mode. And any other parameters agreed upon.
No salesmen, no inuendos, no non sequeturs.
You do have a point: the endless repetition of unsupported statements and enthusiastic bs will influence some unwary to buy an anchor or not buy a competitor' anchor. And who's to say that yours isn't the best when you do say that it is.
Rocna video - what's real
G'mornin Mac,
Well, we have a bit of a he said she said situation here.
I have reviewed the Rocna video again - and what I see there are STRAIGHT PULL tests showing a claw (Bruce) not setting and a plow (CQR) not setting.
Of the small range of anchors shown in a brief pan shot, a Sarca was in the lineup and was NOT shown later in the video as part of the 'test'. There was also a Spade anchor also NOT shown in the 'test'.
The only assumption one can make is that Rocna is showing itself winning, shall we say, against a couple of lame horses. Big deal. And using a method of 'testing' that seems to be getting general complaints, not only mine. Ofcourse the video is a company promotional. That it is a promo is also its problem, because it has to be extra careful to seem to be truthful or fair.
In the P.S. straight pull mud test the Rocna 15 did well on long scope but dragged on short scope. This to me is an indication that this Rocna is not as versatile nor as dependable as some other anchors in that test. No matter what I think of the test it was one of comparisons and a sort of data was generated from it.
And as I have been wondering: is this a congenital problem of the spoon design?
The Rocna video does show a Rocna set very well on the 'long scope' pull test. It also shows it pulled out (by hand - with requisite drama) with a lump of wet sand in its blade.
The Rocna video is extremely elementary and of no use at all except to introduce a viewer to the anchor first time.
I will stand by my statement on spoonshaped anchors not able to take a deep set
until proven otherwise in a well designed comparison test by an independant source.
In the meantime my attention is on non-spoon anchors and non-plow. I think the new tech anchors are still developing. I don't know how to trust anecdotal evidence, tho I am really happy that you, Mac, contribute your experience to this thread. We must be learning something here! We certainly are getting our lines drawn in the sand.
WASI - seeing is believing - but what does it mean?
Not an African anchor.
The very first vender inside the entrance to the vender's tents was/is (The Strickly Sail boat show is still in progress) Swiss Tech America. I stopped short because the photo displays had three views of the Wasi. Buegel to me. "You don't happen to have one here, do you?" Gene Lamb, the US franchiser of Swiss Tech, looked down at my feet. I was almost standing on a live one.
The first thing you notice is the s.s / titanium metal and how chunky the anchor is. The shank of this small (8kg, 18#) looked like it was between 3/4 and 7/8" thick.
What is not apparent in any of the photos is what the blade is like. The blade is the same thickness as the shank!!! - with a, let's say 120 degree chamfer underneath on the pointy sides of the triangle blade. The blade is dead flat. It is not hard to imagine this anchor slicing STRAIGHT into any bottom.
The 8kg anchor at the show is not listed in the catalog product line on the web site, which starts at 11kg or about 25#. I haven't had time to read up on this, but it would seem more than adequate for the Ariel. The anchor and its swivel and chain are sold as a system and is very expensive. Strangely, in the catalog, it is given the same amount of space and importance as a cup holder and the boat hooks.
I think the 18kg, 31# would make a fantastic versatile primary anchor capable of penetrating 'mud shale clay gravel volcanic rock and grass.' The anchor looks incredibly strong (hmmm, wonder about the shank to blade weld?) and incredibly capable of PENETRATING a wide variety of bottoms. There are NO curves that imco would keep this anchor from setting deeper as the stress on the rode increases. I'm persuaded this anchor will not 'pop' out of a set once dug in. NO WAY.
[But lets add: that s.s is much more slippery than galvanized and imco more likely to slip. slice. chisel. in deeper.]
Gene allowed that a suitable shackle (perhaps a Suncor straight D with a no snag pin) would do better for American buyers of the Wasi because some swivels sold here have been returned bent. Evidently the manufacturer cannot understand how the Yanks are bending (but not breaking) the swivel. Actually it looks pretty easy to me! The Powerball has a very slender neck. The Powerball and a chainhook are available (sans anchor and chain) thru other vendors like Perko. The chain to anchor connector is a very hot issue.
Gene Lamb told me that he was the sole importer of the Wasi and that it was unavailable in galvanized. Both statements seem to be a stretch. because there is an outfit called inter-yacht.com in NC that sells galvanized at a more reasonable price. Gene also said that Chuck Hawley of West Marine has just completed a new test of anchors that included the Wasi/Buegel. What other usual suspects were included is unknown, so is when the results will be made public. If anyone is interested in the (unsophisticated, as craigsmith calls it) Wasi/Buegel in galvanized I would research to find out if the inter-yacht hook is some sort of a knockoff.
I found that comment of craigsmith's on the SSCA forum. What gets me is how disingenuous (false candor) it is to call the Buegel unsophisticated. In its simplicity and elegance it is extremely sophisticated. Much more so than Peter's knockoff of the design with the added doodahs that the Rocna represents. Falsely sophisticated, perhaps? For instance, putting the bevels on the underside of the Buegel blade is supremely smart, and very sharp.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
P.S. tests.
1998 -wet packed sand - "The Bruce, in many conditions, is a ferocious setting anchor....In tests by other groups. the Bruce was not as good at ultimate holding power." Bruce, "clear winner".
Jan '99 - sand - Spade & Bulwagga star.
Dec '99 - mud - Barnacle, CQR
Jan '01 - muddy sand - included a 140 degree veer - Bruce, Fortress, Supermax.
Jan '02 - sandy mud - First time with powerboat (twin 90hp OBs) - Quickset best but "popped out at 600# then reset to 780#"
'03 - soft sand on hard sand - set with power boat then rodes led to winch on shore, observed by diver....
google: 03anchor
You take it from there. The WASI clearly will set and set deeper than the competition. It suffers from being extremely expensive in the US, being marketed as a system, and also rather awkwardly marketed.
Maybe craigsmith could get a job over there. They could use some slick marketing. And could see if the Roc will set in Med grass.
Thanks for the review... by price.
[size=3]Thanks for the review Commander Pete,[/size]
[size=3] [/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3] [/size]
[size=3]I took what you had, added a couple of prices I found, and sorted by price.[/size]
[size=3] [/size]
[size=3]Anchors Weight / material Price [/size]
[size=3][/size]- [size=3]Simpson Lawrence Horizon 16.5 lbs $55 hi tensile steel?
Bruce. 16.5 lbs $129
Delta Fastset 14 lbs $129 manganese
Quickset galvanized 22 lbs $160
Manson supreme 25 lbs $165
Danforth.... 13 lbs $169
buegel 20 lb $200.. galvanized
Sacra anchor 28.6 lbs $2483 (?)stainless
bulwagga anchor 17 lb $250
Simpson Lawrence Horizon 16.5 lbs $295stainless
Rocna 25 lbs $300+ (I called and got a quote that was $400+)
Supermax 28 lbs $375
Sacra anchor 28.6 lbs $383 galvanized
Spade anchor 33 lb $391steel
Xyz 11 lbs (?) $395
Spade anchor 15.4 lb $410 aluminum
buegel 20 lb $410 stainless
Cqr 25 lbs $495 galvanized
Delta Fastset 14 lbs $620 stainless
Wasi anchor 24 lbs $646
[/size][size=3]Davis Talon anchor ? (found their website, but no price)[/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3] [/size]
[size=3][/size]
Blown ashore in Key West IMG (not an Ariel)
This isn't specific to Ariels or Commanders, but if you'll look on the beach, you'll see what was reported to me to be the cause of this incident. I like the convenience of the danforth-types, but I sleep more easily with a bruce.
http://www.svjourney.org/pics/beach/wreck2.jpg
Thanks for the orders! Miscellaneous
One of my customers clued me to this thread and I appreciate the mention of Azure Marine. We're still a small company with low overhead, but even our prices will have to inch upwards a bit soon.
On the Manson stainless steel Supreme: This anchor is the only SS anchor we get that isn't polished - the reason is that the stainless Supreme is made with a 2205 (high tensile stainless steel) shank instead of a 316L shank. 2205 is twice the price of 316L.
We're still trying to get the SS product at a better cost in any event, but right now it's relatively pricey as compared to the galvanized model.
cruising life anchor tests
SLEEPING ON THE RODE.
Haven't seen the article myself yet, but it would be disappointing if it's another straight-pull test. Wouldn't you agree that this type of test is unacceptable for cruisers - and just as unacceptable for the weekender?
We need a committee of sailors and cruisers to devise a test, and a method of acceptable testing for a sailboat's PRIMARY anchor. We need standards. Otherwise it will forever be bs, hearsay, opinion, more bs and hype! Maybe anchors could be graded with a number or letter on five or six points:
>Ease of set (variety of bottom)
{1 to 5 scores on various bottoms: mud & loose mud, hard, soft, crusty sand, gravel, weed, coral, rock -- something that would avoid manufacturer's claims)
>Holding power (blade area / long and short scope / lbs of pull)
>180degree reset
>Manufacture (one piece/articulated, welded, forged)
>Stowing / launching (type of craft)
>Some way of equating size of boat with size and weight of anchor.
There are some informational charts that list and compare anchor styles. There is no standard for comparisons or even testing. Real time tests would include an agreed anchoring style: so many feet leader chain per length of boat to nylon rode.
Will it be difficult designing such a test? The committee should have no ties with industry. Anchors should not be gathered for a smack down elimination - the who's-on-top contest atmosphere we have now - but individually tested. A manufacturer of a new anchor could assign the new number system in a patent-pending fashion, until it is independantly tested. Standard bottoms would be the problem, but why couldn't it be done? Anchors could be shipped to areas that have 'standard bottoms' cruisers are interested in for a specific test. Anchors could receive a global or regional recognition - with the numbers left up to the skipper for evaluation.
No government agency involved. Private, privately funded, privately sponsered.
Easy to imagine yachtsmen of repute testing an anchor using a common printed form. With the data collected and published by a reputable organisation. Would be an enormous service to the boat community.
C'pete's Rode Rider anchor-checkcam might be a great tool to use here. {Imagine it would be mobetta to send the cam down for a looksee using the anchor bouy line rather than the tackle. Perhaps the only way!}:D
Manson Supreme early testing
Just got back from Wilmington where I sailed the boat down and took my Captains liscence tests.
I normally anchor a couple times a week, but mostly just use my lunch hook on afternoon sails. I took my shiney new Manson with me for the trip, I anchored for the night half way there, half way back, and used it again for the afternoon stop half way up the river.
I normally try to set pretty close to a 7:1 scope, but tried the Manson at about 5:1 the first night, and just over 4:1 the second. Normally I would not think too much of the results of using the anchor so few times but I am impressed so far.
THe first night, there was about 15k of wind, but there was 2.5k of current, that turned during the night. From the GPS, there appeared to be no change in position outside of the swing circle (no drag). THe bottom was sand with some weed cover. The anchor set quickly, and apparently reset quickly when the current switched.
THe return trip I anchored in the same place, it is on the ICW, with very little protection (behind the 'BC' mark, just south of Surf City). THe wind was blowing pretty good, forecast for 25k, probably gusting slightly higher.
I let out enough rode for about a 4:1 scope (for testing).
The anchor alarm never went off, but the bread crumbs look like someone colored over the swing circle. THe wind and current (again, 2.5, and switching during the night) swung the boat through the entire circle, but there appeared to be no drag. I would not have trusted a Danforth in these conditions unless I had two set in a V with the roades linked.
I stopped on the river for a quick swim, and the clean the boat up before I got back to the marina. I gave it enough rode to set, and then choked it up short. It held with the 10-15k wind.
I used the rode for my stern anchor, which is powerboat rigged (6' of chain) :D
The anchor was no harder to retrieve then my CQR had been, but did not pinch my fingers like the CQR did. The flukes came up pretty clean, but the roll bar drained sand and mud in the cockpit. Won't be an issue once the roller is set up on the bow for it.
Really early, probably too early to tell but so far I am pleased with my Manson supreme.
Impressive Manson Supreme trial
Craig,
Sounds pretty good! Actually:
GREAT!
Like that bit about doing a full swing around.
I'd be sleeping on deck with a wrap of the warp around my leg feeling for a dragging anchor.
You'd have to be gaining confidence in this Supremo - or you would be toast! So what's this anchor alarm? Crockery floating on bread crumbs on the cabin table? What kind of bread? When the boat acts up it'll slide the plate off, Right?
Done a lot of dipping for tips on the net. One of them they say to use clay to fill the spaces in the chain pipe while sailing to keep the water out. Yes.... was wondering were to keep that stash of clay handy?
Could try some clay in roll-bar openings.:rolleyes:
Let's see.... How about a bungie hooked inside? Pull to clear.
Corks? Rubber stoppers? Spray can foam?
Who woulduv thought the tube would fill up with mud?
May be worth asking Manson what they do...?
Maybe it's an extra design benefit - remember the days you'd arm your sounding lead with tallow to see what kind of bottom you were going to anchor on?
Wonder where you'd keep your tallow stash handy?
Short scope holding is very cool. Very good! So far the hook is dependable. AND... you did not have to dive down to set it by hand! Fantastic!!!:cool: