Anchors, once again.

As we all see .....

The chart is dragged out for all occasions where anchor comparison is called .....

Me ? Very wary of the universal answer in anchors ... I know my plough will be lacking in some locations, good in others ... so a good study of being brought up to anchor and not dragging before proceeding to pub or sleep. In fact I rarely leave the boat if anchored ... unless in sheltered / enclosed area ....
 
Anchor comparison chart is flawed

[ QUOTE ]
The chart is dragged out for all occasions where anchor comparison is called

[/ QUOTE ] Why? It's meaningless. It's the first time I've seen it, actually. It's like comparing the fuel consumption of a range of cars without stating the driving conditons. Pointless.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact I rarely leave the boat if anchored ... unless in sheltered / enclosed area ....

[/ QUOTE ]Like most other cruising liveaboards, we need to leave the boat regularly for up to eight hours or so. It would be a pretty miserable existence if one of us had to stay on board at all times!!
 
Re: Anchor comparison chart is flawed

One more comment regarding the chart: considering the spread in these kind of tests, even under more or less identical test-conditions, a number of tests per anchor have to be done. There is no mention of this in the chart. Are the data the result of one test, or of more and if so, how many?
 
Re: Anchor comparison chart is flawed

Yep, it's pretty meaningless but you can't blame Rocna Anchors for posting it! My present system is working well in the Med.

Bower anchor is a 30kg Bruce. A couple of centimetres behind the Bruce's connector, I shackle a 1.8m 10mm chain, to which I shackle the Danforth I use as a kedge. Before deploying the arrangement, I have the Bruce hanging close to the bow roller and the Danforth just kissing the water surface, around 2m below, in such a way the the Danforth's chain is never likely to foul the Bruce's teeth. Now, I let it go. The Danforth lands first and then the Bruce. Clings like a limpet even in heavy Med. weed. I have had several theories as to why it is so good - all of them plausible and obvious - but if you are a Bruce owner and need to anchor in weed, chances are that you have a Danforth or Fortress as a kedge, this is your solution! Mind you, it is a bit of a pain to rig up but you do get a good night's sleep!
 
Agree .....

But I'm not a live-aboard so problem doesn't really arise.

The chart gets dragged out in various guises - sometimes shown - sometimes just referred to .....

Of course there is another Forumite who likes to refer to charts / tests as well - Hylas ..... who seems strangely absent from all this .....

I agree that the chart is useless really as it makes no provision for weather, did vessel swing / change it's pull, type of bottom etc. etc. As you and many others know - conditions that affect anchoring cannot be simply chart displayed - the factors are just too many ....
 
Re: Agree .....

So are you saying that really to get some feedback on a lot more of the variables, it is better to listen to the experineces of those who have tried the newer anchors?

I agree that you can read 10 reports and get 10 different answers as there are just too many factors.

The few people who post who have tried these anchors seem to post very favourable comments.
 
Re: The Mousetrap again ....

The 'walk around the marina' test -

Problem is that walk into any chandler and chances are they will sell a CQR or Bruce or Danforth or Fishermans, but very little else, and these might be copies.

Also, if we all did the 'I'll buy what my neighbour uses' then nobody will ever try anything new even if does appear to be worth trying.

To say that they are not worth trying implies that their performaces are worse then the tradional anchors, which I do not believe to be the case.

I have seen people cruise with 'cr*p' anchors and drag in an onshore F2!
 
Re: Agree .....

Whenever an anchor question comes up, we all get obsessed with ultimate holding power in conditions that if we're sensible most of us will avoid. By the time the wind gets up to 20+ knots and the waves start to build, I want to be out of there! So for me an equally important consideration is how easy it is to break-out an anchor in these conditions (with no windlass) when I want to leave in a hurry. This information never seems to appear in test tables, but I've observed quite some differences in this respect with various weights and types.
 
Seems fair enough ....

Surely at end of day its down to users - not sellers to decide if an article is any good ?

Trouble is with anchors - you don't really know if they are any good until the day they fail !! All the time they do their job - you literally forget they are there ....

Reports are favourable for just about all modern anchors given good weight and cable scope etc. Trouble is it only needs one person to not anchor correctly ... anchor breaks out and drags .... if user doesn't cotton on to the initial error - he will condemn that anchor as at fault.

Me - I use a heavy cqr on all chain rode .... I have not had any trouble with it ... but others say they wouldn't use my set-up. I am against weight saving when it comes to anchors - I believe in kg's .... so the push for lightweight solutions doesn't figure in my book .........

I don't like charts / tables of comparison ..... bit like comparing car performance figures ..... no real use to anyone really unless identical driver, identical conditions etc. Tables are a guide only and should be used as such.

Each to their own .....
 
Re: Seems fair enough ....

25lb .... plus full scope chain.

If I was anchoring more often / widening my cruise area - I would go up a size on anchor..... probably 30lb.

I have dried out at various Solent locations - eg Priory Bay where swell and waves can chuck you about a bit .... and often when dried out - I find the chain has formed a wide sweeping bight on the sea-bed and anchor is still in its first position etc. Showing that chain has done it's job and that anchor has stayed fast.

I know some of you have seen this before - but I think it shows well the chain has done it's job ... look closely and you'll see chain going of to the right from boat stem ..... then you can see it coming back again along the ground to the anchor laying just under boat ..... note direction of anchor.

DSCF0205.jpg
 
Re: Seems fair enough ....

I agree on having heavy ground tackle - anything less than 25lb struggles to get burried with a hard floor.

My interest in the Rocna (and ilk) is its seeming ability to bury itself quickly. One occasion with a CQR I was anchored with a sandy bottom, and when I came back from being on shore the boat had moved 200 yards with the change in tide. Not much wind, but enough to snatch a little at the cable. Could have been rather nasty if the wind had been from a different direction. I was using a 25lb CQR with 30m of chain in about 2m of water - plenty of scope!

On this occasion a quick burying anchor would have not done this, and the experience has made me very nervous about leaving the boat in these conditions.

Like you I do not care much for the fact that its holding power on the graph looks so much better as I would rarely put it to the test.
 
Snapdragon 23 and 25lb CQR

Returned to Langstone hbr in full-on gale with brother and son. By time we got to swinging mooring it was dark and boat was bouncing on bottom .... at that end of hbr - depth should have been about 3.5 - 4m ..... with the wind and waves created ... boat was banging on bottom.
We clewed up and got in the inflatable to get ashore ... trusty Seagull plugging away ... we realised that boat was not in position and that she had broke free ... so back to boat to see if we could do something. Only think to do was to throw out anchor and as much chain as possible. With that weather as well ... was better to make for shore and go home - hope boat survived. (Boat was in Havant Quay area and no risk to others if she drifted onto Farlington Marshes ...)

Next day when wind and weather died down .... I walked out to boat at low tide. Mooring had parted at the shackle to sinker .... a bow shackle which had taken side loading ... and snapped .. (I didn't fit the bow shackle - I would have used a D ....). The anchor had dug a furrow as the boat pulled under influence of weather ... about 50 - 100yds max. It was still well dug in and had saved the boat ......
I kept that mooring shackle for years to show people ...

My faith in chain / anchor was re-inforced that day ......
 
It seems that posts about anchoring seldom end up in an answer to the original question, which in this case was: Does anyone have information/experience of the Manson Supreme Anchor. The only one who approached this was Ship's Cat, who mentioned that Manson was a well-considered New-Zealand ccompany. Craig Smith came with a chart, showing that his Rocna-anchor was by far the best, but which chart was considered dubious and lacking in information and therefore of little interest. So at the end I am still stuck with the question: Does it make sense to buy a Manson Supreme Anchor?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I've been staring at that chart for nearly five minutes in disbelief. It does not state the nature of the seabed. Without knowing that, the data is utterly useless. Furthermore, no single anchor usually comes top of the list in all seabeds so you need to produce a table for sand/mud, weed, and rock, at the very minimum.

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
One more comment regarding the chart: considering the spread in these kind of tests, even under more or less identical test-conditions, a number of tests per anchor have to be done. There is no mention of this in the chart. Are the data the result of one test, or of more and if so, how many?

[/ QUOTE ]Apologies for the lack of detail in that chart. However, as was stated, it is the averaged results from the recent West Marine (a major US ship chandler) and SAIL magazine (major US magazine) testing. Obviously a good place to look for more information would be the current issue of SAIL.

Yachting Monthly will be posting their own write-up of the same testing shortly.

Failing that, some details about the actual testing:

<ul type="square">[*]14 anchors, all similar size
[*]Three locations, seabeds different types of sand
[*]Three differents scopes: 3:1, 5:1, 7:1
[*]"Real world" testing (in water using a 70 tonne powerboat to pull with conventional rode, with digital loadmeters allowing an excellent analysis of each anchor's behavior)
[/list]To interpret the chart:
"Max Before Releasing" is the force the anchor withstood before moving (i.e. the effective holding power). "Max Pull" is the peak force measured after the anchor started moving. The lack of this measurement for any given anchor is bad, as it implies the anchor pulled free rather than remaining embedded.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that posts about anchoring seldom end up in an answer to the original question, which in this case was: Does anyone have information/experience of the Manson Supreme Anchor. The only one who approached this was Ship's Cat, who mentioned that Manson was a well-considered New-Zealand ccompany. Craig Smith came with a chart, showing that his Rocna-anchor was by far the best, but which chart was considered dubious and lacking in information and therefore of little interest. So at the end I am still stuck with the question: Does it make sense to buy a Manson Supreme Anchor?

[/ QUOTE ]Manson's reputation in NZ is based mostly on their CQR copy, which is considerably cheaper than the genuine item and thus enjoys a large chunk of market share down under. Having said that, it does not perform as well as the CQR itself, as demonstrated by the link I posted before (that is independent testing also). This is a good demonstration of the problem with copies - they're never quite as good as the original.

To address your question directly, there are many reasons I could list that would argue for the Rocna over the Supreme. However, the upshot of them all can be seen quite simply in the SAIL testing. While this is not the whole picture, it is a very important component of it - it is about consistency and reliability. An anchor which has performed poorly in that testing has done so for a reason.
 
Re: Seems fair enough ....

[ QUOTE ]
I have dried out at various Solent locations - eg Priory Bay where swell and waves can chuck you about a bit .... and often when dried out - I find the chain has formed a wide sweeping bight on the sea-bed and anchor is still in its first position etc. Showing that chain has done it's job and that anchor has stayed fast.

I know some of you have seen this before - but I think it shows well the chain has done it's job ... look closely and you'll see chain going of to the right from boat stem ..... then you can see it coming back again along the ground to the anchor laying just under boat ..... note direction of anchor.

DSCF0205.jpg


[/ QUOTE ]I am sorry to appear confrontational but I feel obliged to address this (again). SBC if you honestly believe your chain to be adequate without an anchor, I wonder at your evident interest in these threads concerning what gets shackled on the end. By your apparent attitude, a brick would be sufficient.

It is utter nonsense to suggest the chain does all the work. Its "job" is not to hold the boat in place. I won't argue that in detail, since it is very clear from your photo that hardly any force has been placed on the rode (the chain has not even been straightened) and no "work" has in fact been done.

Furthermore you have, either through failure of the anchor or just bad seamanship, not set the anchor itself. Using such a photo as a demonstration presented to possible newbies reading this thread should be condemned.
 
Manson's reputation in NZ is based mostly on their CQR copy

There you go again, focussing on one anchor (which does indeed have a reputation) in order to denigrate your opposition - they are builders of a range of anchor types (for different duties) including special builds for superyachts, etc and are widely known for that.

As I said before, never trust an anchor builder who maintains his anchor is best.

Even more so never trust an anchor builder who denigrates an anchor built by his opposition which isn't even the anchor made by them that is similar to his own. That is you seem to be saying that because you reckon Manson's plough anchor is inferior to a CQR (which would be contested by many impartial observers) therefore their Supreme must be inferior to your Rocna /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif.

John
 
Oh Dear .... choose words carefully ...

a) Seabed in photo is hard. Setting an anchor into that would be difficult !
b) Boat has swung to tide and weather ... with weather abating as she settled - allowing weight to come off rode.

Instead of being so "smart" and posting such rubbish about my post - why don't you ask some questions of me first - maybe you would then have information that would be more suitable ....

You have just convinced me that you have no idea of comparisons and are solely intent on selling Rocna anchors ... come hell or high water.

I had kept my replies nice and diplomatic without barbs or slurs ... sorry but you have turned the "cable" round ... I shall now go off in a huff !!


/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Actually there's a better answer to you Mr. Rocna .... but word filter will edit it out !!!!

/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

zoidberg
The definitive anchors article?
2
Replies
20
Views
760
Wansworth
W

Share this page

Top