Anchors and anchoring, one of Panope's latest videos

[NormanS]

Is it not the case that the CQR was originally developed for seaplanes?

 

[thinwater]

Is it not the case that the CQR was originally developed for seaplanes?

That's what Vryhof says in this flyer:

"CQR. Named due to its resemblance to a farming implement, the CQR plow anchor was designed and developed by Professor Sir Geoffrey Ingram Taylor and came to market in 1933. It was patented and designed as an anchor for flying boats, with the Admiralty ordering 60,000 CQRs during the Second World War. The anchor, designed as a single fluke anchor with additional weight in the tip of the fluke to help the anchor dig in and set faster, remains a favorite for large pleasure vessels."

History Flyer

I wonder to what extent the designers of seaplane anchors were influenced by where they were located and where they believed the planes would be deployed? Northill was a product of California, and perhaps each was focused on their own coastal waters, which are quite different. Perhaps neither focused on where they were deployed. Who can say. Both moved the ball forward.

 

[Bouba]

My thoughts,
Any test where a Delta out performs a Rocna is obviously not real world conditions.
Any test where the plows all out perform spades is not a real world test.
Is the purpose of all anchor testing to have a poke at Rocnas? Is it because that’s the anchor everyone has therefore by creating doubt in people’s mind we will all go ditch them and buy new ones, therefore creating a market (you won’t get rich waiting for an anchor to wear out).
And when he goes out in his open boat with 17 anchors on board do people think he must be the anchor thief?

 

[Gixer]

I've just watched two videos on anchors. how many do I have to watch to become a real YBW Forum member?

 

[thinwater]

My thoughts,
Any test where a Delta out performs a Rocna is obviously not real world conditions.
Any test where the plows all out perform spades is not a real world test.
Is the purpose of all anchor testing to have a poke at Rocnas? Is it because that’s the anchor everyone has therefore by creating doubt in people’s mind we will all go ditch them and buy new ones, therefore creating a market (you won’t get rich waiting for an anchor to wear out).
And when he goes out in his open boat with 17 anchors on board do people think he must be the anchor thief?

a. You didn't explain how he faked it, or what about it is not plausible. Wind does change direction.

b. There have been numerous credible reports of scoop type anchors, most numerously Rocnas, not resetting when clogged with sticky mud. You can Google them. I had friends lose a boat on the rocks when a conservativly sized Rocna dragged in very moderate condisions (I don't know the reasons, but it apeared to be a sand bottom and no one else dragged). Just sayin'.

The reality is that anchor testing is extremely variable. The veer test, for example, demonstrated that the CQR hinge (possibly) makes the anchor stable in veering conditions. It always did have a good reputation for that. It is setting in difficult bottoms were the CQR is weak. The plow-shape (Delta and Excel also) generally tracks well when veered. No mystery.

Rocna is better at other things. Very soft mud. Hard bottoms. And the truth is that 98% of anchoring is in relatively non-challenging conditions, where any good anchor, properly deployed, will do just fine.

 

[Poey50]

I've just watched two videos on anchors. how many do I have to watch to become a real YBW Forum member?

It's not the number watched that counts its the number you can criticise.

 

[Bouba]

I've just watched two videos on anchors. how many do I have to watch to become a real YBW Forum member?

It’s not how many videos you watch that counts. It’s how many anchors do you own

 

[Adios]

OK This is confession time. None of the glitter here.
The anchor that I use on a day to day basis is a 20kg genuine Bruce. It came with the boat, and has proved excellent.

I had a bruce that came with a boat and went with it. Used it in a wide variety of places, always set without trouble and never had a cause to doubt it. I was a vocal fan of my bruce. And then I watched some anchoring videos ☹ Turns out its rubbish and I need to spend at least 3x the amount ?

 

[Bouba]

I had a bruce that came with a boat and went with it. Used it in a wide variety of places, always set without trouble and never had a cause to doubt it. I was a vocal fan of my bruce. And then I watched some anchoring videos ☹ Turns out its rubbish and I need to spend at least 3x the amount ?

Well how do you think I feel ? I bought the greatest ever invention. A new generation anchor ! A Rocna. Every since then every video says it’s the worst piece of crap ever, only fit for.........(I was going to say, only fit for a ship’s anchor)??

 

[Adios]

Well how do you think I feel ? I bought the greatest ever invention. A new generation anchor ! A Rocna. Every since then every video says it’s the worst piece of crap ever, only fit for.........(I was going to say, only fit for a ship’s anchor)??

?? I thought you were going to say garden ornament ?

 

[Neeves]

Rocna is Peter Smith's interpretation of a Spade with design differences that he thought improved performance over Spade or did not infringe design or patents. Of course its a good anchor. But neither are perfect.

But no anchor is perfect and if its a commonly used anchor then there is considerable merit in underlining its weakness (or weaknesses) so that people do not become complacent. A number of yachts using a Rocna (or Supreme) have ended up on beaches and the failure has been distilled to have been the inability of the anchor to reset when clogged with seabed. Thinwater has mentioned one example of which he has personal experience. The reason there have been a number of instances is (because of the design) but also because the anchor is popular. If the anchor was not popular the one or 2 accidents would simply have slipped under the radar. There have been more than one or two......

One reason Rocna is [popular is because it is exceptionally well distributed and it sets quickly and reliably - but if you think about this, good marketing does not make a good product. Quick setting might be convenient, but again does not necessarily made the anchor 'good' - there are other characteristics to consider. Mantus engages quickly (note I do not say sets) but it has the hold of the same weight of Delta (and has been 'almost' professionally hyped).......A Fortress has exceptional hold in sand - but that does not help it in weed and pebbly seabeds

Notably the Spade has no roll bar - and its the roll bar that contributes to the clod of seabed being compressed in the fluke.

Would you rather this was all swept under the carpet and you would sleep more comfortably not knowing

So we have a known and popular anchor, a weakness has been detected, a number of independent 'investigators' have checked out the possible contributor characteristics to failure - all have come to the the same conclusion - and you complain that you are being made to rethink your choice.

Personally I think the work has been totally successful - you should re-think your choice. You should reduce your complacency (use your anchor alarm). But there is little point in you throwing out your anchor, another anchor has different weaknesses. So manage the weakness of your anchor, use another anchor if you find yourself a bit twitchy (you surely carry a spare, of the same size but of a different design) - just be cognisant of the weakness of whatever style is your primary/favourite.

Finally be grateful that people are willing to analyse failure - stop knocking the work - you are the beneficiaries - even if the news is really not what you want to hear. If you think that a number of parties working independently on different seabeds, different parts of the world, using different techniques of analysis are all wrong in coming the the same conclusion - say so - and say why these tests are wrong. Constructive criticism is good

Jonathan

 

[Bouba]

The problem I have with this video, is how poorly my anchor performed ! First he attacked it with power tools (I saw that video a while back). Then he verbally slags it off before dropping in the sea for its final indignity. It’s if he is dreaming up tests that are anti Rocna.️

 

[Adios]

Personally I think the work has been totally successful - you should re-think your choice. You should reduce your complacency (use your anchor alarm). But there is little point in you throwing out your anchor, another anchor has different weaknesses. So manage the weakness of your anchor, use another anchor if you find yourself a bit twitchy

A bit twitchy?! All this is making me a nervous wreck. The problem is its a never ending quest, a purgatory of forever rethinking our choice of anchor when shown new ones and new tests in new seabeds. There will never be a perfect anchor for all the reasons stated but as long as they keep trying to find the Holy Hook we'll have doubt cast on our current anchors. I'm not sure it's healthy. They all work, lets leave it at that ?

 

[Neeves]

A bit twitchy?! All this is making me a nervous wreck. The problem is its a never ending quest, a purgatory of forever rethinking our choice of anchor when shown new ones and new tests in new seabeds. There will never be a perfect anchor for all the reasons stated but as long as they keep trying to find the Holy Hook we'll have doubt cast on our current anchors. I'm not sure it's healthy. They all work, lets leave it at that ?

The gullible and easily impressed public, in America, looked at the Pictures of Anchors thread and rushed off and bought a Mantus. Further research showed it to be not quite as portrayed in fact not as portrayed at all (a conclusion from the gullible public was that Mantus was a better version of a Rocna). Sadly further work simp[ly showed it to be - not very good (people reacted violently to this idea, as they reacted violently to the idea that Rocna its self was not perfect.

Some characteristics take time to define - the investigators have other interests and are not necessarily that bright (yes, I've got my hand up). Sadly then people invest before the whole truth is known.

But you rushed off and bought a Rocna (I wonder why) more recently people rushed off and bought a Mantus and now people are rushing off and buying a Vulcan - lemmings come to mind. Just be patient, let others be the guinea pigs, wait for a few Epsilons to hit the seabed - don't expect an instant assessment. But I doubt Epsilon will be perfect, it will have some weaknesses - but they might, or might not, be more acceptable.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

Whilst renovating the dinghy today my mind wandered (possibly a sign of age or a sign the dinghy renovation was simple and I could thus multitask

People who own Rocna seem to take exception that someone has the audacity to mention that the fluke might clog and to suggest that there might be repercussions to this clogging.

It made me think of the number of times I have mentioned lateral thinking, out of the box and if you like - innovation.

Anyone and everyone who owns a Rocna when they or their crew retrieve the anchor find that in nice clean sand it comes up clean, there may be some sand left in the fluke but it easily washes out. Anchor in a sticky seabed, sand/clay. think mud with a bit of weed and the anchor comes up with a huge lump of seabed adhered in the fluke and sometimes this clog or clod is quite large. I know this is a FACT as some people do admit to this happening and I have seen this happening when a neighbouring yacht lifts their Rocna (in the appropriate seabed). Some times this clod is washed off with some effort, sometimes the owner has learnt and drops the anchor to just below sea level and motors slowly off - allowing the flow of water to wash the anchor clean.

Has it never occurred to these owners that should their anchor trip (when full of this same clod) that it will take time for that clod to self clean from the anchor and that maybe this clod might alter the characteristics of the anchor during the time this self cleaning is being effected? Maybe my mind is a bit warped and I think outside the box too much and expect others to have similar thought processes. I do like to think well of people.

Now this idea, of concave anchors clogging, is not new - it goes back decades.

Gordon Lyall was TD at Simpson Lawrence and led the team of 3 or 4 that developed the Delta. You will find his name and that of his co-workers on the Delta patent. SL was a well known company in Scotland well beyond leisure vessels and Gordon would be invited to give erudite lectures to a Scots shipbuilding society - something like the Scottish Shipbuilding Society. (I used to attend similar meetings in the steel industry in Scotland and they were more social meetings - time for a beer and a chat - cemented together with a short lecture (preferably with bit of humour in it).

When the Delta was introduced Bruce had already released his anchor and I do wonder if one of the motivations to develop the Delta was the competition introduced by Peter Bruce. The Bruce was reputed to carry mud and to illustrate the fact Gordon would challenge someone to catch a tennis ball in a Bruce (to much laughter - but some success) and then challenge anyone to catch a tennis ball in a Delta

Times change, but stay the same.

Gordon retired to the SW coast of Scotland and kept his yacht, unusually a catamaran, in a marina there, I don't recall where - Girvan, Ayr...?

There is really nothing new nor surprising that a concave anchor collects mud, that why JCBs have a big bucket, not a snow plough, if they want to collect something.

Jonathan

 

[Mr Cassandra]

Whilst renovating the dinghy today my mind wandered (possibly a sign of age or a sign the dinghy renovation was simple and I could thus multitask

People who own Rocna seem to take exception that someone has the audacity to mention that the fluke might clog and to suggest that there might be repercussions to this clogging.

It made me think of the number of times I have mentioned lateral thinking, out of the box and if you like - innovation.

Anyone and everyone who owns a Rocna when they or their crew retrieve the anchor find that in nice clean sand it comes up clean, there may be some sand left in the fluke but it easily washes out. Anchor in a sticky seabed, sand/clay. think mud with a bit of weed and the anchor comes up with a huge lump of seabed adhered in the fluke and sometimes this clog or clod is quite large. I know this is a FACT as some people do admit to this happening and I have seen this happening when a neighbouring yacht lifts their Rocna (in the appropriate seabed). Some times this clod is washed off with some effort, sometimes the owner has learnt and drops the anchor to just below sea level and motors slowly off - allowing the flow of water to wash the anchor clean.

Has it never occurred to these owners that should their anchor trip (when full of this same clod) that it will take time for that clod to self clean from the anchor and that maybe this clod might alter the characteristics of the anchor during the time this self cleaning is being effected? Maybe my mind is a bit warped and I think outside the box too much and expect others to have similar thought processes. I do like to think well of people.

Now this idea, of concave anchors clogging, is not new - it goes back decades.

Gordon Lyall was TD at Simpson Lawrence and led the team of 3 or 4 that developed the Delta. You will find his name and that of his co-workers on the Delta patent. SL was a well known company in Scotland well beyond leisure vessels and Gordon would be invited to give erudite lectures to a Scots shipbuilding society - something like the Scottish Shipbuilding Society. (I used to attend similar meetings in the steel industry in Scotland and they were more social meetings - time for a beer and a chat - cemented together with a short lecture (preferably with bit of humour in it).

When the Delta was introduced Bruce had already released his anchor and I do wonder if one of the motivations to develop the Delta was the competition introduced by Peter Bruce. The Bruce was reputed to carry mud and to illustrate the fact Gordon would challenge someone to catch a tennis ball in a Bruce (to much laughter - but some success) and then challenge anyone to catch a tennis ball in a Delta

Times change, but stay the same.

Gordon retired to the SW coast of Scotland and kept his yacht, unusually a catamaran, in a marina there, I don't recall where - Girvan, Ayr...?

There is really nothing new nor surprising that a concave anchor collects mud, that why JCBs have a big bucket, not a snow plough, if they want to collect something.

Jonathan

If you grind the roll bar off a Manson Supreme would it help or hinder it's holding capacity ?

 

[geem]

Well how do you think I feel ? I bought the greatest ever invention. A new generation anchor ! A Rocna. Every since then every video says it’s the worst piece of crap ever, only fit for.........(I was going to say, only fit for a ship’s anchor)??

If its that crap I would just throw it over the side?

 

[Neeves]

If you grind the roll bar off a Manson Supreme would it help or hinder it's holding capacity ?

This is a guess

I don't think a Rocna needs a roll bar in every situation but because, I believe, Rocna is an interpretation of a Spade but the ballast lacks the focus of the Spade (spread out and steel not lead) then in some situation Rocna will not rotate to a setting position - it needs a roll bar. As a Supreme is, apparently, based on an interpretation of a Rocna to be made used existing facilities at Manson (they can roll steel to make the fluke) so a further move away from Spade - I suspect the roll bar is, even, more critical. Supreme also has ballast, in same way Rocna does (extra steel in the front half of the toe, but welded not a thicker plate).

I would be twitchy - the Rocna is not a 'good' copy of a thought through design and a copy of a copy might mean a, further, lack of understanding - noting its so, so easy in hindsight - so I would not do it.

It might work in many situations with Rocna. but less in Supreme.

In many seabeds both Rocna and Supreme are more than adequate. If you want more certainty - buy a Spade or Excel (but both, all, fail in thin mud) and both Spade/Excel are expensive (though if you keep the anchor for 10 years - the cost is peanuts (even to poor Neevsy ) sorry Dom, could not resist !

I keep saying this - hang in there, its winter in the UK, no-one surely is making long cruises from UK ports. There are new anchors, for the UK, on the horizon, Epsilon, Excel and Viking - just wait for the reviews and prices.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

edit, but answering the actual question - in both cases - as long as the anchor sets - the hold would be higher and the set, hold, more dependable - the ability to engage is going to be less (Rocna) and even less reliable (Supreme). (terrible English ).

Jonathan

 

[Bouba]

I think everyone is missing the point. We can’t go changing anchors willy-nilly, we all made a great deal of effort to explain to the wife that we need this new latest and greatest anchor. What are we supposed to do? Tell her it’s somehow lost it’s stickyness?
We have no choice but defend the expensive bit of steel on the end of our bow roller