New Generation Anchor

[CapnK]

Rex -

Thanks much for the reply! It is good for those of us at the "bouncy end of the rode" to hear from manufacturers. I'm glad we've been given the opportunity to hear about and from SARCA, as I was unaware of your design prior to it being brought up here. I will be giving them some serious consideration, of the "New Gens" it seems that the design and testing seems to be more like I would have done than any other. Perhaps sometime in the near future I'll be slinging one up front next to my Bulwagga.


Thanks also to Mister Senor Ebb for the thread topic, this has been enlightening and informative.

[ebb]

Just had snailed a color brochure and price lists for anchors and anchor channel rollers Sarca calls 'bowsprits.'

Anchor Right Canada, 9267 Shaughnessy St, Vancouver, BC, V6P 6R4. Phone 604-322-4008.

Using their charts I would choose either their 28.6lb #4 galv- $383.26 (s.s. $2,483.14) OR their 32.6lb #5 galv - $436,12 (s.s. $2,545.01). There must be a mistake on those s.s. prices. The envelope came with a dvd that screwed up half way thru but seemed to be a copy of the video on the home site.

The prices for the s.s. roller bowsprits are $410.97 and $601.07. Windline must have way better prices than these!

There is also a small exchange rate difference in our favor.
AND the UPS and any other not mentioned charges to add on.

That makes the SARCA more than three times the price of a comparable Manson Supreme. Manson called me up to say sorry they had my anchor on Back Order. I might have called them back to cancel but after this I'm going to let it ride for awhile.


There's more to say about this issue. Which I'll save for later.
Thanks to Rex for his last forthright post.
One important difference to emphasize is that the Sarca is made from ALL mild steel, including the shank. Mild steel is low carbon and not highly alloyed and rusts less BUT, more important, if it does get bent you can hammer it back to shape again. THAT would be useful. The hardened shanks of the Rocna and Supreme MAY be more likely to break rather than bend as intimated. And if they bend would be a bear to straighten. So, if you bend the Sarca, can you beat it back into a useful condition - on your boat - with a simple vise and a single jack?

+ + + +

The other thing is that there are 4 or 5 or 6 or more technical grades of mild steel. It's somewhat inappropriate to call the material you make an expensive technical anchor out of: "mild steel." Now we plebs are NOT supposed to be interested in esotreric metalurgy, and the pros don't want to reveal their secrets, but there must be a way to describe manufacturing expertise in layman's terms without patronizing. I heard a word used in criticising officials as: (there should be) 'transparancy' (when talking to concerned people.)
I'd like to see the words used to describe any high-end product as transparant, revealing, and covering up Nothing. No sugar added.

[Bill]

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

[ebb]

Great Bill!
'Course SARCA is an acronym for Sand and Rock Combination Anchor.
At this point I'm convinced it's a pretty technical hook not really the best choice for anchoring in abandoned marina mud soup. AMMS.
Maybe others have the feeling, tho, that the newer anchors overall present a choice of lighter anchors more suited for a small cruiser.

[ebb]

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.

[Bill]

It might be good to hear about anchors from someone who's sailed in the South Pacific. My brother (now deceased), took a plow along with his Danforth when he sailed to Australia in 1976. The plow, he found, was best for anchoring in coral. At least, that's what I remember him saying.

[Mac]

EBB - I've been watching this thread with interest and you have forced me to post. This is not meant as me 'having a go' at you but more about putting some corrected comments into the thread.

Reading this thread it is quite apparant you have absolutly no idea about Sarcas except for what Anchor Right has told you. I do believe you trashed the Rocna bloke as a marketer of his own product so he could not be taken seriously. Do you see where I'm going with this, I suspect you are far from silly and you do

I have actually spent quite a bit of time playing with Sarcas, Rocnas, Spades, Supreme and many more. It's my job to spec anchoring and mooring systems which I both enjoy and take seriously as lives could depend on what I say. I don't believe 'marketing speak', do my own testing, always ask everyone with a boat what they use and how they find it, ask the manufactures so many questions they are sick of me and always make my customers give me feedback. My comments and conclusions are based on a combination of these.

A few corrections to some of your posts;
You are correct in saying a Sarca is concaved BUT only if you turn it upside down They are a convexed plow type as you will see when you site one in person and as you mentioned in a earlier post.

Sarcas are OK in clean firm bottoms. In soft mud they have many issues as many anchors do.

The PB report tests (they were not done by PS) done recently were as useful as a chocolate fire screen (just found that saying and do quite like it ). Anyone making a decision based on them would be regarded as very brave or very gullible. Even the 'best choice' anchor has a web page saying this

Compearing the Sarca Roll bar to the Rocna or Supremes is like compearing a 3 door hatch to a SUV. Again when you see these anchors you will notice the very big differances. The Sarcas rollbar is very important to it's structural integrity but on the other 2 it is not. Rex has obviously not had a close look at those nasty Kiwi anchors either. I think this is confirmed when Rex said the R & S (rocna and supreme, I'm getting lazy) anchors have laminated flukes, they don't. The S does have a small plate on it's tip and thats it.

It is good to see Rex on here explaining his product even if there does appear to be more than one of him judging by the posts.

Anyone passionate about their product will feel a tad defensive to negitive comments (be they right or wrong). They will also make the most of what they can to make their product look better. From what I have seen said on this site and know for 'fact', I would say Rocna has been more honest than Sarca. One small example - Sarca say their anchor has NZ Maritime Authority approval, this is complete rubbish as the MSA do not approve things like this. What Sarca actually has is a OK from a privatly owned company (not a well respected one either) who does some marine work.

Sarca says they have sold over 1,000,000 anchors and I'm just going to pop into my dingy and row to the moon for a picnic with G W Bush.

Sarca also say they have taken the NZ market apart...simply wrong. They have a big presence, but far from dominate, in the small fizz boat market but it is very unusual to see one on a boat above 30ft.

NZ's biggest anchor maker has had to hire more staff to fill orders coming from Australia and keep up with NZ supply as well. Makes one wonder where the million anchors are if they are not in AUS or NZ.

The Sarca 'sliding release' thing was on a NZ made anchor many years before Sarcas appeared. It has also been used on others before as well. It is far from new.

A Sarca comment 'We don't flog the holding power features of SARCA'. Do you wonder why when it is a very important part of an anchor performance?

If this all sounds like a bit of a Sarca bash, it sort of is to a small degree, for 2 reasons. 1, Having played with many many anchors over the years I find myself unable to recommend a Sarca on anything but day fizz boats due to there physical size (very big) and low holding. 2, SARCA are masters of marketing (or someone there is) very similar to the way GW sold the war to the US people. Based ruffly on but not entirely truthful. I personally think this is a mongrel of a thing to do when lives are at stake.

Some of your 'special' comments I liked.

HEARSAY IS OFTEN THE WORST KIND OF INFORMATION YOU CAN GET.
And your comments are ????

Wager that the SARCA will get and hold in more bottoms than the ROCNA.
INCLUDING HARD SAND.
I'll put a tray of cold beers on that. But be aware I don't make bets I might lose

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.
Could this be read as all product deserve to be called rubbish except for the one I chose because I know best??

Rocnas - Take me up on your wager and you will very quickly see what the differances are. Sure Rocna Craig is everywhere but look what he has done to promote his product with a advertising budget of next to 0 (guessing) so most would regard this as damn clever so don't knock him for that. Sure the Rocna is not 100% perfect but what out there is?. Is it an improvement to CQR's, Deltas and the other older anchor desings? I would personally argue.. Yes and by quite a bit. Is the Rocna very strongly built? Oh yes. Most importantly.. would I and my kids sleep on a boat anchored with a Rocna? From my experiance I would have to say a very confortable Yes to that as well. Do I know others who would? Yes quite a few.

Supremes - being so new we have only had limited playing and feed back so far. Results look OK to date bar one unhappy punter who could not get it to set. This does appear to be a quirky one so we can't take to much from it. It's still a tad early to tell for sure but I think she'll stand up OK. We look forward to your experiance with one. That was a serious comment by the way so please let us know.

Spades - no question there. I'd sleep very happy on those as well.

CQR - Delta. I'd sleep OK once I got them to set properly

In summery, please don't go off about subjects like this without sound first hand knowledge. Just think of the 1st time boater who may read the forum and get put on a bum track, it could prove very dangerous and no-one wants that.

Disclaimer (claimer or whatever it is) - I am not related to, being paid by, shagging the daughters/sisters of or getting any personal advantage by posting this from Rocna, Supreme, Spade, Lewmar or anyone else in any way. That is not to say I wouldn't past my bank details to any if they would like to make a donation or reject the ph number of at least one sister if offered
I do spec and sell anchoring and mooring gear including ALL of the anchors mentioned above. I do know and have talked to Rocna Craig, Supreme Steve, Spade Alain and Sarca Rex.

[eric (deceased)]

is a strong as its weakest link.everything about the anchorage system should be checked----as I said before ----the bolts securing the cleat to the deck can and will fail if put under enuff stress.so much for that---how about dealing with clearing what ever anchor you use of the holding ground retained on its flukes once on the deck----and then-- if the line -chain -or what have you- has been deployed{sorry --"deployed" is a skydiving term} for any amount of time ---it will have marine growth on it---usually once on deck---at least my experience has been----especially in a crowded anchorage---once the boat goes broadside ya' jus' aint got much time to get under way----by sail or power----and now ya' got a deck cluttered withs sails---jibs-- other stufff-and here comes a muddy slimed anchor and its associated rhode.what would jesus do????that reminds me----the cockpit scuppers are just about at sea level----which means your feet are at sea level-----your average everyday runna'th'mill ariel goes---about well--would you agree---about as fast as you can walk????does that mean----we---I --- walked on the---------

[ebb]

I'll stand behind what I've said and I'll also stand corrected. This is all discovery. Process.
I'm not an authority, haven't repped myself as such, and I'm doing this to share my interest with others on this specific site.

I'd detect that you Mac are a kiwi and just naturally have a leaning toward others of your religion...er region.

Couple small things: The hoop is a rollover bar on all anchors that have them. Whether Sarca has to have em for structural reasons is not important because the rollbar is part of the design.
Sarca imco is a plow only because we haven't come up with a better word. It's humped. CQR is a plow and looks like a plow.
Rocna is a spoon for the same reason. There isn't a better word, yet. Rocna blade is a flat V-bent with the back of the blade bent up at a shallow angle. It's a good enough 'spade' or spoon or holder of stuff for me. The Manson Supreme blade looks rolled to me like it's a section of pipe, it has no dish evident and no flaps in the back. Have the feeling that when mud gets in this one it'll slip right off.

Certifications: Sarca has three: Marine Safety Victoria = High Holding Power.
"first time ever". A Lloyds Register Melbourne certificate. And a Class SGS M&I certificate.
Manson Supreme has a Lloyds Register of Shipping - Super High Holding Power certificate "first and only boat anchor to have this."
I couldn't find any certificate thingys on the Rocna website. One can't help wondering why?

Final observation: Of the two Kiwi anchors, Rocna has by far the most elaborate, well groomed, testimonied website. It is impressive, and is meant to be so, I think. They want to impress you with how sophisticated and high tech their anchors are, their only product. On page 12, the last page, of the testimonial section there is a couple letters from Graham Alderwick who singlehands a Nova 28 finkeel sloop with a (35#?) Rocna 15. Persuasive!
Watched the video again and noticed, I'm certain, in the line up for the pull test, a Sarca. But it did not later appear. Too bad.
Manson Supreme has a short, to the point profile with no testimonials but does feature the SHHP certificate: Super High Holding, now that's impressive. {Actually, it is. But what does it mean? Am I impressed by the certificate?]

A visit back thru the Sarca site, this time, is a distinct disappointment. Sarca definitely presents itself as a small outfit (we make our anchors out back), it also makes a couple other products related to the Sarca anchor. There is essentially one view only of the anchor (I was looking for how deep the unplow shape was), and another on the sand. There are no views of the anchor being deployed or retrieved.
Rather strange given the other products are to be used with the anchor. All the testimonials I found this time are by powerboats. This time no sailboats, no cruisers. Not a very good presentation.
If all I had to go by was the internet, Rocna would win by a nautical mile.

Testimonials are often the most dramatic sellers of a product. All sellers know this. So you still have to have some dramatic skepticism to balance these Opinions as well.

[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.