New Generation Anchor

[Mac]

The Kiwi V's Roo thing does seem to have some baring on things but mostly coming from the Aussie side or The West Island as we call it. They have some sort of complex about us but it's all in good sprit. I do belive Anchor Right had some internal issues with their NZ people which would not have helped. Surprisingly the NZ and Aussie marine markets are very very differant especially seeing we are only a few hours apart. 40hours and 18 minutes by a fizz boat a week or two back, Sydney to Auckland harbour bridges, not a bad effort.

Generally we boat quite differantly. We tend to do a lot more 'coastal' type work due the the shape of the country and having plenty of places to go. In lots of Austraila there is long gaps between boltholes so they tend to do lots of inshore type boating.

Don't be fool by the Sarca site, they are a well oiled operation but small by world scale, the nature of most manufacturering down this way. They do make nice bow rollers even if they are a tad pricey. Mind you Aussies do want more pay then China so it is a bit understandable. The Sarca is not a 'bad' anchor just it has limitations which have to be kept in mind. It does set well but after it's set things could be better.

Re Certs; If you look closely all of the Sarca certificates are for the same single anchor. Don't want to be rude but The Marine Board of Victoria?? a small state outfit, hardly significant. M&I a private company with a tad of a dubious history. Lloyds watched the same test and chucked in a Cert as well. Hardly anything definitive and a bit I find a tad annoying. This can be quite misleading if you don't know about Certs and the like.

On SHHP the actual loads required are surprisingly small and would be achievable by most. It is more a complete 'quality control' process to make sure construction is done right and other things like that, not purely loads. A damn good tag to have anyway and does give some more assurance of construction and performance.

Why does Rocna (Spade, XYZ, Sarca (yet) and many others) not have Lloyds? Purely the cost from what I gather, it's bloody huge. I did hear the Supreme spent around $30-40,000 odd getting it. Obviously most would struggle there. I get the impression the respective manufacturers would prefer thier products performance in real life to do the talking. I do like the Testimonial war they have going on. As you said they are more valuable than most other sales angles.

Having a very close association with anchors I can assure you these guys won't be retiring with a Rolls in the gargage

I've seen the raw Rocna video and I think they are 'being nice' to Sarca, shall we say .That video showed that they did pull each anchor exactly the same (be it good or bad) so the results are based on a even playing field. It's that old chestnut to pull test or not, how to test and so on. It will always be a tricky one. Would have been nice to have a Supreme in there as well but they weren't out then.

It's all quite an interesting subject (is that a sad thing to say? ) really and one of those that will be debated until the end of time, I suspect.

And of course all of this discussion has not got into the way you can dramatically affect your anchors performance by the rode behind it. Another story

Sail safe

[eric (deceased)]

I sailed my triton starcrest 2 to hawaii and back from california in 1990.even after reading in the cruising guides that la haina in maui had poor holding ground I dropped the cqr in 35 feet of water.the ground was nuttin' but hard coral---I could visibly see the only action holding the boat in place was the inter-weaving of the chain amongst the points of coral on the bottom.the anchor itself was visibly exposed---not dug in at all----just dead weight--not performing its function of "digging in"then in keehee lagoon----great "deep muck" excellent holding ground----I set two anchors off the bow ---the 35 lb danfort---a 14 lb hi-tensile good ole' plain-ole' nuttin special danforth---and a stern hook.lemmee tellyaz' that these held so well----they all held the bottom schmutz even when they were hauled up on deck.this stinky smelly schmootzy muck from the bottom of that lagoon was all over the deck,the sails,and I had to leave them as such till I was outta the lagoon an' underway.it was too crowded for me to be concerned about the mess at that time.I dont need to see this on video---its all in my memories

[ebb]

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.)

[Mac]

Yeah your right on those test, complete waste of news print. By the way they were done by Power Boat Reports and reprinted in PS, a sister mag thing I understand.

The Rocna tests were very long and the whole video would take forever to download so I suspect they just picked out what they regard as their serious compeditors. One thing I saw was some very strange behavour of a Bugel (a 25kg version), it did just not want to play the game and had surprisingly low peak load.

Another thing shown was the Sarca setting quick but had very low (and I'm being nice here) loads. It did only just hold 25-30% of what the 2 new generation anchors did. The Rocna boys they did seem to give the Sarca extra attention to try and get higher loads but couldn't get much. These loads were a surprise to them and myself. Mind you we have heard many stories about them sliding. It looks like due to the geometery of the Sarca it will only bury until the shank is flush with the seabed and then it stops. Unless you have a nice clean bottom to dive into I suspect it will never hold high loads as it just does not bury deep like others. Yes it does look very busy or ugly as most people say.

We have done many test pulls over the years and the results of ours and one or 2 others I have read mirror the Rocnas so I'm happy they didn't do any jiggery pockery

With all of this 'mines bigger than yours' going on we have designed a couple of 'shoot-out' tests. While not exactly real life, which is damn hard to replicate, they should give us a nice 'head to head' comparison on speed of set, who holds more and re-setting. One test is a knock out round robin thing head to head, should be fun and interesting. Watch this space. I'm about to get test 'suggestions' from any anchor makers watching this now I suspect.

We deal with all of the anchor mentioned on this thread plus others. This does have it's moments but anchors are a person specific item and we find we can talk about just about any anchor but the punter wants what they want. As a 'general rule' so far, some one wants a Spade they leave with one even though they do cost the most down this way. Sort of like a Ferrari owner I suppose, "thats what I want so thats what I'll have". Similar for the Rocna wanters and CQR (we use Manson plows ourselves, lot beter value for $$). The rest will listen and may change if we think it is a better option. Very strangly the Supreme does not have much traction at all, why we can't work out, even with the SHHP tag, maybe still a bit new.

The 'fouling' of the Bruces and its knock-offs is well known. Having played with many anchors I don't see that being as big an issue with the new ones as one might expect. One thing is for sure though, you will always have a little bit of the seabed when you bring them up , they do grab a big bit of it. That comment of yours about the mud sliding off the Supreme did seem a bit strange. While that would be handy on retreival what about when buryed? One is good and the other not. Whats your expanded thoughts on that bit?

Who looks the prettiest?. Personally I prefer softer rounded shapes (could just be horny boy thing ) so lean a tad more to Spade and Supreme over Rocna but anyone picking an anchor on looks alone needs their head read obviously. You seen a Stainless Spade...... better than sex !!!!... errr... nearly anyway

You are right when you say the Rocna looks a tad clunky, it sure is one very solid well built lump of steel and I would hate to think what condidtions would ever get close to doing it any damage. In the pure strength of construction stakes I would rate the Rocna as the up there with or above the best I've seen. Mind you when it's blowing its tits off who cares what it looks like. I have also never heard a fish complain about the look of any anchor

Bugels we don't see many of. There is a bloke making knock-offs and a few overseas boats but that's about it. We've heard mostly, but not all, good about them though.

XYZ's, ABC's, STD's and the rest we don't see many of either. More a US thing I think.

ERIC - coral, Oh what a joy to anchor in...not. It does have a habit of grabbing your chain which is not that bad I suppose as long as the anchor grabs if the chain slides thru. Ooze, soft muck and Danforth patterns do make good bed fellows. As much as some don't like them they do work well in some situations and do store in the bilge nicley. I'll have a big one tucked away on the next big boat (50ft Cat).

Anchor to chain connections - Ye ha! one of my favourites . Sexy well made stainless swivel if 3 strand rope is in the rode or a bloody big shackle if it's not.

What ya reckon??

Nice chatting with you all by the way.

[eric (deceased)]

I prepare my anchor set-ups before I need them.I decide where I want to go before hand and configure what I will need accordingly.as I have done much deep water crossing in no way would I prepare for anchoring in 100 feet of water.I would think 30 feet at the deepest.according to books I read{ya notice I always say---"according to the books I read"}-- the scope should be 7 times deeper than the depth.thats the optimal configuration.when I took my former boat down the intercoastal---I knew that the average depth for where I was going was about 10-12 feet deep.I shortened the amount of line/chain to about only 10 feet of chain and about 50 feet of line---knowing full well that if I decided to anchor---I would be in no more than 10 feet of water ---and most likely in very calm conditions---so the least amount of scope would have been necessary.I also knew it would have only been used as a last resort---being caught powerless in the protected water of the intended route I was considering to follow was well out of the harms way of a true lee-shore danger situation.Also as the situation I was preparing for was only a temporary set up---as any anchor setting anticipated would not be as a long term use---so I simply secured the line to the chain with a galvanized swivel and a handy-dandy-taught in sailing school bowline knot---you know --the rabbitt goes around the tree---thru the hole----then the free end of the line was hand tacked to the line itself.and not to be outdone---I double checked how the existing deck cleat was secured to the deck---and it was decided to be sufficient---then the bitter end was secured to a below deck fitting.remember ----the most important tool you can have is experience---it cant be lost ---borrowed --- or dropped overboard.you can only get more and more of it.

[ebb]

Mac, your TESTING is most interesting!
And I do hope you keep us posted.
Thanks eric for your input!

This anchor adventure began for me as a search for an ideal - multi-bottom and multi-scope bower for the Ariel. (Bower has come to mean to me the anchor you carry on your bow. Doesn't mean you always carry it there, but it is your main anchor. You may carry a larger storm anchor.)

My impression is that the ole favorites: Danforth, Plow, Fisherman (Luke Herreschoff) are pretty much passe. It is also my impression that the big bite anchors (Bruce, Claw. Max) have real problems too and also may have seen their day in popularity. They have the problem of taking a bite and having a mouthful seem to leave their set with a ball of the bottom stuck in the blade and may tend to hop over the bottom.

BY EXTENSION I see that as a problem with any SCOOP style anchor.
NOT KNOWING NOW, OK? - even if the anchors have sharp points the blade could or does fill with a ball of the bottom it has penetrated.

I have used the analogy of a spoon digging into a melon: once the spoon is started in it will want to follow its radius and scoop back out. I thought that image might describe what happens with round bottom anchor blades. They'll slip in. grab their bite and that's it, follow theirselves back out.

Now the triangular anchors we seem most interested in here many use the scoop principle. Don't know but the same thing that the wider blades do may be happening with the sharp nosed scoopers. Like I say. Mac, I don't have the benefit of actually playing with these babies.

My assumption is that the straighter the blade the more likely the boat will pull it to a deeper set. The harder the pull, the deeper the set. What I see in the Sarca (from afar) is a recognition of that with the added twist of turning the spoon over so that the anchor when tugged on will dive in deeper. Whether this happens in practice is a matter for testing.

The Manson Supreme, while a scoop, has no dish. Therefor one might assume, if the angle of the shank to the blade is correct the anchor could keep setting deeper without wanting to follow a radius out of the bottom.
Get my drift??? Looking at the Buegel, I see the same principle. It looks like a deep setter because the blade is nearly straight.

The point is to FIND THE BEST ANCHOR FOR THE SMALL TO MID-SIZE CRUISER. Has nothing to do with personalities, countries, or size of business. None. Only the best most versitile anchor - could be Tibetan for all I care.

These are assumptions, observations. If I were comparison testing, I would gather ALL anchors (including the Buegel) in a certain sailboat tonnage range
and set up a series of real world and straight pull tests. Might even blindfold the testers so that they could fudge numbers for their personal favorites.

[craigsmith]

BY EXTENSION I see that as a problem with any SCOOP style anchor.
NOT KNOWING NOW, OK? - even if the anchors have sharp points the blade could or does fill with a ball of the bottom it has penetrated.

I have used the analogy of a spoon digging into a melon: once the spoon is started in it will want to follow its radius and scoop back out. I thought that image might describe what happens with round bottom anchor blades. They'll slip in. grab their bite and that's it, follow theirselves back out.

No. Ebb the idea is to create a concave shape similar to that of a spoon; this will generate the most resistance. If a blade is filling with a ball of the bottom, it is holding well. If it is letting go of that ball and moving through the seabed, well then it is not holding is it. (In simplistic terms. In fact the "balling" problem has not appeared for the Rocna; even hard clay manages to clear from the blade quite easily. In reality the anchors will bury themselves, but this brings up another issue with testing, as the burial process takes some time. You can't do it when you first set the anchor - it has to have time to work its way down. Therefore the ultimate holding power of most anchors slowly increases from the time it is first set, over perhaps a 12 or 24 hour period, depending on the seabed type).

But the superior nature of a concave fluke is really beyond debate. Concave is better than flat is better than convex, and this has been proven and demonstrated countless times now. Did you not like Graham Alderwick's comment: "My old 30lb Manson plough, while adequate most of the time, and during settled weather, just would not have cut it under these conditions. They should all be relegated to where they belong – on the farm."

No they will not follow the radius of their curve in the lengthways axis . If they did that we wouldn't get much very good feedback would we. Saying this is like saying a parachutist will rotate vertically around his 'chute as he falls . The motion the anchor wants to perform is related to the average reaction vector of the blade and the angle of pull as dictated by the rode through the shank. And of course all this is very carefully worked out to be optimum.

The Manson Supreme has no curvature in the lengthways axis because they roll the fluke's two laminated layers rather than fabricating it out of brake pressed sections as we do, and it would be too difficult to get the shape right (curve a piece of card then try to make it spoon shaped, and you'll see what I mean). So this is a result of cheaper construction and nothing to do with core design principals.

If I were comparison testing, I would gather ALL anchors (including the Buegel) in a certain sailboat tonnage range and set up a series of real world and straight pull tests. Might even blindfold the testers so that they could fudge numbers for their personal favorites.

You would have to consider other factors also. What about strength of the fluke, strength of the shank (in all different directions), weld/build quality, durability, simplicity and ease of construction (important to the consumer also because a complex design generates quality control issues meaning some units are "lemons"), quality of finish (galvanizing), reliability, fit on bow rollers, value (cost), versatility (different bottom types), I could go on...

If we wanted to do well in your hypothetical "comparison testing" (which is the same as what most magazines continually try to do while never understanding all the factors involved - although not all are as bad as Powerboat Reports / Practical Sailor), we could consider your test set-up and build you the perfect anchor that would win every time. But it would be at the sacrifice of most of the factors listed above.

Straight line pulling tests that Practical Sailor just published produces scewed results and imco (and many others) are pretty useless.

The Powerboat Reports tests have been mentioned a few times now on this thread. We have a FAQ relating to the results - you can read it here:
www.rocna.com/press/press_0603_ps_faq.pdf