+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 213

Thread: New Generation Anchor

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by ebb
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebb
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebb
    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
    Last edited by craigsmith; 04-16-2006 at 11:21 PM.
    Craig Smith
    Rocna Anchors
    www.rocna.com

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Rafael, CA
    Posts
    3,621

    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.
    Last edited by ebb; 04-18-2006 at 07:00 AM.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by ebb
    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.
    Just a quicky reply, G'day again Ebb, by the way.

    From all I have seen, done with and heard from my customers the concaved is better than the older convexed shapes comfortably.
    Good on ya for being a thinking boaty, you're a dying breed. Not to sure on some of your thoughts though but some is still better than none.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebb
    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?
    Its all about angles and pressure. If you keep pulling they will set deeper, bottom condidtions willing of course. This applies to most anchors to a point.
    I've seen the raw video and can't agree with your last sentance though.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebb
    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.
    Sorry just wrong. I've done and read many tests and can't see where you get that from. Take a big spoon down the beach and have a play with it and you may see what Craig and them are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebb
    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.
    You're right on that bit to a point

    Quote Originally Posted by ebb
    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.
    Wrong wrong wrong. I have plenty of proof myself and have to fully disagree with you on that bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by ebb
    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.
    100% correct

    Quote Originally Posted by ebb
    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.
    It is hard to be a passionate salesman and not come off looking a tad biais

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Rafael, CA
    Posts
    3,621

    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.
    Last edited by ebb; 04-19-2006 at 04:57 PM.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by ebb
    Of the small range of anchors shown, a Sarca was in the lineup and was NOT shown in the video as part of the 'test'. There was also a Spade anchor NOT shown in the 'test'.

    ...

    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.
    lol Mac give up . . .

    Craig Smith
    Rocna Anchors
    www.rocna.com

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Hampton Roads Va.
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsmith
    lol Mac give up . . .

    Apparently you don't know Ebb !

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11
    I do get the impression 'the EBB' is a dedicated bloke and won't give up without being totaly satisfied. That's not a bad thing really.

    Looking at the whole video I would say the Sarca is not shown as it is not regarded as a serious compeditor. I think it is the 'other new gen anchor' on the chart thing. The Spade probably as it is not as widely known anchor down this way.

    The whole video is an hour and a 1/2 so I suspect the lads just put in what they see as the known anchors which are regarded as serious compeditors down this way.

    The video on the site could make one think dodgy stuff was afoot but after seeing the whole thing I'm happy to say all anchors were treated exactly the same and as far as 'tests' like this go it was on the straight and level. Yes it is a 'promotional' thing so most would expect a tad of 'padding' or 'truth by omission' which is common practice and quite understandable. As I've mentioned before I would regard the Rocna site as a lot more honest than many others even taking the 'promotional' thing into account.

    That PBR (PS) test was so poorly done it does not rate any consideration. read the method and I think the word you will use is 'bizzare'.

    The CQR and Claw (bruce knock-off) did not set well beceause thats what they do in real life anyway more than often, this is well known. It was a Bruce knock-off and I suspect more and more they are not as good as the real thing and I also suspect a real one would have done better.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Northern MN
    Posts
    1,100
    This has been a very interesting thread to follow.

    It is always better when one can walk away with new ideas, a better understanding and more knowledge.

    But, my question is...should I replace my Bruce anchor? Is it foolish trust it's hold after I have set it, payed out enough scope for the depth and check it periodically to make sure we're not drifting?

    How did people anchor out for all of these years without our newest designs?

    should I even sleep tonight

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17

    Arrow

    Tony you might just as well ask the same question if you lived 2000 years ago:



    The bow and arrow still works rather well eh - but that doesn't mean it's the best choice anymore.
    Craig Smith
    Rocna Anchors
    www.rocna.com

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony G
    This has been a very interesting thread to follow.

    It is always better when one can walk away with new ideas, a better understanding and more knowledge.

    But, my question is...should I replace my Bruce anchor? Is it foolish trust it's hold after I have set it, payed out enough scope for the depth and check it periodically to make sure we're not drifting?

    How did people anchor out for all of these years without our newest designs?

    should I even sleep tonight
    Sleep? Depends how the wife/ girlfriend feels

    The Bruce and the other more known ones are not 'bad' anchors just things move on and improvements have been made.

    I'm sure all will agree that if your anchor has worked well not given you any reason to be worried, why change. If it has been not-setting, letting go or just been a complete pain in the a**e then look at changing.

    All the chat about anchors always seems to over look the effect of the rode behind it. You have a good rode and the anchor works better, have a crap rode and even top end anchors will struggle at times.

    If I had a Bruce that has not done me wrong, a good rode behind it and I deployed them well, I'd sleep very well.

    If a 1960 Morris Oxford (it's a car) gets you from A to B fine why buy a Ferarri? Sure the Ferarri will do it a hell of a lot better but the Oxford will still do it, with some encoragement. When the Oxford packs up look at the Ferarri.

    Where EBB I miss him already

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Rafael, CA
    Posts
    3,621

    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.
    Last edited by ebb; 04-21-2006 at 10:45 AM.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Asst. Vice Commodore, NorthEast Fleet, Commander Division (Ret.) Brightwaters, N.Y.
    Posts
    1,823
    Most of us have no idea what the different types of anchors look like, reccommended sizes and cost.

    Its very confusing

    maybe somebody could do a cost comparison. I started to, but its difficult . Different sizes and materials.

    Post any corrections or additions and I'll incorporate them

    Rocna

    22 lbs
    $320

    33 lbs
    $394

    http://www.rocna.com/home.php?region=na

    http://www.suncoastmarine.ca/pricelist.html
    (prices in Canadian $)
    Attached Images  
    Last edited by commanderpete; 04-22-2006 at 03:08 AM.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Asst. Vice Commodore, NorthEast Fleet, Commander Division (Ret.) Brightwaters, N.Y.
    Posts
    1,823
    Sacra

    28.6 lbs
    $383

    http://www.anchorright.ca/index.php?id=can
    Attached Images  
    Last edited by commanderpete; 05-03-2006 at 06:47 AM.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Asst. Vice Commodore, NorthEast Fleet, Commander Division (Ret.) Brightwaters, N.Y.
    Posts
    1,823
    Manson supreme

    25 lbs
    $165

    http://manson-marine.co.nz/SitePages/SupManson.htm
    Attached Images  
    Last edited by commanderpete; 04-22-2006 at 02:54 AM.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Asst. Vice Commodore, NorthEast Fleet, Commander Division (Ret.) Brightwaters, N.Y.
    Posts
    1,823
    Bulwagga

    17 lb
    $250

    http://www.noteco.com/bulwagga/
    Attached Images  
    Last edited by commanderpete; 04-22-2006 at 04:04 AM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts