Best Value For Money New Generation Anchor

oldmanofthehills said:
Rocna or Manson Supreme or Manson Spade are the best. Better than Delta, and much better than Bruce (though Bruce is good back up) and infinitely better than CQR. It will cost over £200 but your boat let alone your life and nerves are worth much more if you need such security.

Mansons are odd to fit on bow rollers though and thus hard to retrieve and stow so might be worth checking. Deltas are not bad so depends on usage. I want to anchor a 10m boat in shingle and boulder in F6 and sleep securely in rolling seas so its worth it for me to pay out the extra and deal with the fittings, but it may not be for you.
Click to expand...

Thoroughly confusing.

Spade has no association with Manson.

You suggest Manson's are odd to fit on bow rollers - do you refer to the Supreme or the unrelated Spade?

Spade have exactly the same shank profile as a Delta, except they have smoothed out the corners, lay one on top of the other and its as if Spade have taken a French curve and joined the dots. The Supreme is a bit different as they have that big area at the shackle end to allow for the tripping slot and dedicated shackle hole. But if you use the shackle hole they should run over a bow roller as easily as any other anchor - unless they come up upside down.

And if the latter, make yourself one of these:

http://www.mysailing.com.au/cruising/how-to-boomerang-your-anchor-right-back-at-you

Using a small roll bar anchor in shingle and boulders - Spade or Kobra, neither will have a boulder jamb in the fluke, under the roll bar.
 
jordanbasset said:
Okay stretching my technical competence and had to resize the picture to post but hopefully shows the holes (have put a piece of rope through the middle hole as was not clear on the picture otherwise)

View attachment 66335
Click to expand...

My shank has 2 holes only, one just above the fluke and one under the fluke (to secure the shank when in use). My shank is 'missing' the hole through which you have the rope. I did not have any choice when it came to assembly - there was only one hole! I did replace the securing bolt, it is now stainless, with a nyloc nut and cotter pin.

Mine is a very old 15kg model, bought from the chandler at Preston Marina, maybe 5-7 years ago, where one housed on a bow roller was slightly bent, (I brought ours back as checked in luggage). I ordered it up specially direct with Plastimo in the UK, so prior to the contraction, and Preston was the nearest place to collect. Once I saw how it worked I never unbolted the shank to allow us to store it 'folded'.
 
Last edited:
Neeves said:
My shank has 2 holes only, one just above the fluke and one under the fluke (to secure the shank when in use). My shank is 'missing' the hole through which you have the rope. I did not have any choice when it came to assembly - there was only one hole! I did replace the securing bolt, it is now stainless, with a nyloc nut and cotter pin.

Mine is a very old 15kg model, bought from the chandler at Preston Marina, maybe 5-7 years ago, where one housed on a bow roller was slightly bent, (I brought ours back as checked in luggage). I ordered it up specially direct with Plastimo in the UK, so prior to the contraction, and Preston was the nearest place to collect. Once I saw how it worked I never unbolted the shank to allow us to store it 'folded'.
Click to expand...

Yes we also never bother unbolting it as it just sits on our bow roller. Re the spare hole can't remember if my first had one.
 
jordanbasset said:
Okay stretching my technical competence and had to resize the picture to post but hopefully shows the holes (have put a piece of rope through the middle hole as was not clear on the picture otherwise)
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the photo.

There are a few possibilities, but my best guess is the second hole was designed for the clip that is used instead of the bolt in the "Kobra 1" model.

The "Kobra 2" uses a much more secure bolt to connect the shank in position. The "Kobra 1" uses a clip. I think your shank was made with both holes so Plastimo could use the same shank for either the clip or the bolt, in other words fir either the "Kobra 1" or the "Kobra 2" model.

The "Kobra 1" model was fairly rapidly replaced by the "Kobra 2" model, as the clip system was not very reliable. The "Kobra 1" model is still available but only in the smaller sizes (10kg or less) that are likely to used by boats fishing instead of overnight anchoring.

There is a big difference between the two holes and it does not look from the photo that you could get the bolt to fit through the second hole, as the fluke would foul the ballast chamber. Is this correct? If so, there is no danger of using the wrong hole.

I have never seen these two holes on any other Kobra anchors so it may have been a short production run modification in the early days when the "Kobra 1" was being replaced by the "Kobra 2", but it would be interesting to hear if anyone else has this type of shank.

This is a photo of the clip used on the "Kobra 1". The hole for the clip looks to be in same place as the hole on your shank. Of course, if this hole is used with the clip the geometry will be correct. Interestingly, the owner of the "Kobra 1" in the photo has welded the shank onto the fluke, presumably because the clip system was not very reliable, although it may have been because the cross bar was damaged. However, the "Kobra 2" system with the bolt is quite a good system, providing you take a little care to make sure the correct bolt is used.

This is a photo of a "Kobra 1" with the clip visible:

Ys8lJP7.jpg


So you have a Kobra 2, but the shank has holes that would work for the Kobra 1 or the Kobra 2. All other Kobra shanks I have seen only have one hole, but in a different position depending if it is a Kobra 1 or a Kobra 2.
 
Last edited:
LiftyK said:
I replaced my Delta with a Mantus. It bites every time. Good price as I bought it in Texas, where it is made, when the pound was a little stronger. As it bolts together it came home in my suitcase and took half my weight allowance. I am very pleased with my Mantus and it still appears to be relatively good value compared to other new generation anchors.
Click to expand...

I'd agree - the least expensive new-age anchor.
 
Interestingly all, or most, anchors are made to some basic concepts.

If you look at ships anchors their fluke to shank angle is a standard 30 degrees, measure the angle between shank to crown (hinge) and fluke to crown and its 30 degrees - unless its designed to be used in mud. Of 'our' anchors Fortress is the best example, except they have used 32 degrees. This angle (around 30 degrees) is well known and was subject to much research by the US and UK Navies, lots of documentation higher or lower angle and the hold drops off.

In mud 30 degrees is less effective and the 'fluke' angle needs to be around 45 degrees, even 50 degrees for success - hence Fortress ability to alter Fluke angle and its exceptional performance against anything else in mud. But 45 degrees will not work in sand, you cannot have your cake and eat it. Equally 30 degrees, the common angle, is less effective (but might still work) in mud.

Specialist anchors, if you like - Fortress - but there are others - have different angles - but they are focussed for use in specific seabeds. The most common seabed is sand - hence 30 degrees.

If you now extrapolate and look at 'our' anchors and take the angle between shackle point (at the end of the shank) and the crown (the middle of the weld where shank joins the fluke) and crown and toe (sharp end of fluke) - is also 30 degrees, Spade, Rocna, Supreme, Mantus - they all meet this fundamental. Delta, Kobra and Excel also meet this 'rule', of 30 degrees - though you might need to fudge for these 3 dimensional flukes as to where the 'effective' angle might be.

So though anchors look different - they are actually designed round strict perameters.

If you saw an angle that was not 30 degrees and were sufficiently cognisant to know the importance - it would stand out like a sore thumb - and would not work.

Having a fluke angle of 30 degrees is not a panacea, compare a Delta with a Spade - other design components; weight, centre of gravity and shank length being examples; are critical.
 
Oldmanofthehills

The Boomerang is not original - Norman, I think it was NormanS, made the original from round stainless rod, which he bent (45 degrees) and then welded rings at either end. Oscalutti (spelling?) sell something similar but theirs is overly complex as it unnecessarily incorporates a swivel, it is also commonly incorrectly attached within the rode. I liked Norman's idea but do not weld so made one from Bis 80 steel and had it galvanised. I simply then published the design so that others could make their own. Maybe 100 have been made here in Oz and Anchor Right make them, to the same design, - I don't know how many they have sold. Its not difficult to make, Duplex stainless would negate the need to galvanise. You just need an angle grinder, decent slow speed drill, files and for perfection a Dremel.

It has a restricted application as you do need room between bow roller and windlass. The dimensions are not 'critical' - they just seem to work (and one made from 8mm Bis80 failed at 9t (a Duplex stainless 8mm one should be goor for 5-6t - so its strong enough!). You do need rather a lot of shackles!

Anchors arriving at the bow roller upside down, or sideways is quite common - and a real issue if you are trying to retrieve from the helm, the bow roller is inaccessible or the anchor heavy.

The Boomerang simply flips the anchor round, before it gets to the bow roller, so that it addresses the bow roller 'right way up'.

But before anyone does anything - check there are no twists in the chain between anchor and windlass as if there is even a half twist - the anchor will never arrive at the bow roller correct way up (except by chance). Twists will not pass though the gypsy but accumulate. Most twists will fall out as you retrieve (just leave the anchor to hang for a minute or so just before it gets to the bow roller), but maybe not the last half twist - hence the Boomerang.

However you appear to have a bigger issue if your Supreme will not run over the bow roller smoothly, or relatively smoothly - even when right way up. It sounds as if your bow roller might be narrow or the shackles too big. It is not an issue that I have come across before, either on a Supreme nor any of the other modern anchors.
 
Thankyou for that tip about boomerang. My shackle is cut down with half the head removed so narrower than the guideway and does come up better if clearly the right way up. I will investigate the Oscalutti as a swivel might indeed be needed as otherwise the anchor might indeed be twisted by the chain orientation. Indeed a swivel on its own might help though i tend to avoid superfluous fittings as merely representing further things to fail
 
Go out of your way to not use a swivel. I believe expensive ones, Kong and Ultra, might be acceptable but most others, including Oscalutti would then introduce the weakest link to your rode. They fail frequently at the swivel itself or the clevis pins, which are simple sex bolts (and thus significant weaker than they appear). You cannot look at the integrity of the swivel joint as it is hidden in the barrel of the swivel. Swivels only work with manual intervention, you will still need to rotate the anchor with a broom handle - and they certainly will only remove twists in the chain if you have a lot of twists - the friction in the mechanism is too great. Finally - as if that is not enough to deter you - they are often big items and will retard or reduce the ability of your anchor to dive/set. You could buy a smaller version - but then it will be even weaker! Commonly swivels are attached directly (and incorrectly) to the anchor shank and the fork can then bend, stressing one of the sex bolts, and (depends on your anchor) might bend the shackle eye.

Lost anchors are caused by them become irretrievable, failed shackles or failed swivels. Swivels are unnecessary and do not work - so remove them and anchor losses would reduce.

Hence the use of a Boomerang, or something similar - no moving parts.

Jonathan
 
Neeves said:
Go out of your way to not use a swivel. ....
Lost anchors are caused by them become irretrievable, failed shackles or failed swivels. Swivels are unnecessary and do not work - so remove them and anchor losses would reduce.

Jonathan
Click to expand...

Attached is image of bent Kong one I have just removed. Not sure when it happened, but was on a NG anchor. I did pick up someone else's anchor (v lucky not to end in a v expensive bill) but can't be sure - I just presumed it was OK and never examined it too closely.

150671339184225474403.jpg
 
dgadee said:
Attached is image of bent Kong one I have just removed. Not sure when it happened, but was on a NG anchor. I did pick up someone else's anchor (v lucky not to end in a v expensive bill) but can't be sure - I just presumed it was OK and never examined it too closely.

View attachment 66542
Click to expand...

Looks like the swivel was attached directly to the shank ... is that right? Somewhere I picked up the recommendation to have a short section of chain betwixt swivel and shank to avoid a sideways force on the jaws of the swivel.
 
Poey50 said:
Looks like the swivel was attached directly to the shank ... is that right? Somewhere I picked up the recommendation to have a short section of chain betwixt swivel and shank to avoid a sideways force on the jaws of the swivel.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was attached to anchor. If extra links added that might make it difficult to fit in with most windlasses?
 
Swivels do not work in the manner people assume, so why use them.

People assume they will remove twists in the chain resulting from changes of tide and wind - they do not do this. The friction in the swivel is simply too great (unless there are lots of twists). Twists will always remain in the chain.

If you lean over your bow to turn the anchor round manually the swivel might work, but you can remove one turn in the chain the same way, so why use them.

Even the best, apparently, swivels bend, why use a device that is shown time and again to fail.

Even a shackle between swivel and shank is better than simply attaching directly to the shank.

I'd be interested in anyone providing a reason to use a swivel - other than as a means to increase the risk of anchor loss.

Jonathan
 
Neeves said:
I can confirm that I have found the Kobra to set well, so excellent hold, and quickly in a variety of seabeds. It is good in sand, as they all are, but with its long, narrow fluke makes it a quiet achiever in both weed and pebbles/stones. I found its setting ability reliable, or predictably good.

I was not over enamoured with the folding mechanism, thought it unnecessary (and liable to misuse/failure - maybe confirmed, or not, by the images)

It is very well priced - and good though it is I'm twitchy about the integrity of the shank (I have seen bent ones on bow rollers).

It is considerably better overall than any other cheap anchor, brand name or otherwise. It would have cost peanuts extra to upgrade the shank - what were they thinking of!
Click to expand...

Plastimo made the Kobra shank that way in order to be sure not to infringe the patent of Delta anchors
 
"New generation" anchors are not because they are concave or otherwise, they are "new generation" because they have been designed using modelling and getting the geometry and the balance better and therefore making the anchor more effective. I currently use a Kobra; it has never failed
 
CAPTAIN FANTASTIC said:
"New generation" anchors are not because they are concave or otherwise, they are "new generation" because they have been designed using modelling and getting the geometry and the balance better and therefore making the anchor more effective.
Click to expand...

With respect, that definition begs the question. If it were true that all new anchor products that had involved modelling were more effective, everyone would be ditching their CQRs, Deltas and Brittanys for cheap new commodity picks. They’re not - with good reason. The ‘new generation’ of anchors is the concave generation, and the reason it’s significant - worth distinguishing from others - is that they set faster and hold harder. Significantly so, as any new user will attest.

Sure, it is less helpful to refer collectively to these different designs as ‘new-generation anchors’ than as what they are - ‘concave-fluke anchors’ - but it’s much less helpful to lump together all modern products that happen to have been designed using modelling, which it’s hard not to use these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top