Best Value For Money New Generation Anchor

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 claim begs the question. If it were true that any new anchor product that had involved modelling made the anchor 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 it’s significant because they set faster and hold harder. Significantly so, as any user will attest. Sure, it is less helpful to refer to them collectively as ‘new generation’ than as what they are - ‘concave fluke’ - 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.
 
BelleSerene said:
‘concave fluke’.
Click to expand...

Never thought about it before but that's quite an interesting insight. I've never really understood how Fortresses made it onto the list of 'next generation' anchors and the answer is because 'next generation' means nothing. The innovation was the concave fluke design combined (I think) with a narrower toe.

Anyone care to shoot that idea down?
 
BelleSerene said:
With respect, that claim begs the question. If it were true that any new anchor product that had involved modelling made the anchor 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 it’s significant because they set faster and hold harder. Significantly so, as any user will attest. Sure, it is less helpful to refer to them collectively as ‘new generation’ than as what they are - ‘concave fluke’ - 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.
Click to expand...

New generation concave fluke anchors like the Bruce? First made in the 1970s. :D
 
I think the term 'new generation' is a reflection of the recent rapid increase in innovation in anchor design.
Pre 1930s, an anchor was some variation of a fisherman's.
From then until the 70s, you had Danforth and CQR representing the cutting edge of technology.
The Bruce was the first new design in the modern era, followed a decade or two later by the Delta.
Then from the late 90s to today there have been dozens of different designs appearing- you could argue that there are really only two closely related basic types, exemplified by the Spade and Rocna, and everything else is a minor variation upon that. But there is far more choice now than before, and it has happened relatively quickly.
 
NormanS said:
New generation concave fluke anchors like the Bruce? First made in the 1970s. :D
Click to expand...

Not quite. But a cute point that claw anchors such as the Bruce are concave - the parts of the claw that aren't the gaps between its webbed toes are - a bit, aren't they. More flat with two wings, honestly. Google 'Bruce anchor' and select Images.

As Vyv Cox put it in YM (my bold type for emphasis):

"anchor test... placed new-generation anchors firmly at the top for holding, Delta in the middle, CQR and Bruce firmly at the bottom. "
Read more at http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/gear/different-types-anchor-pros-cons-29473#CCS4SyvhUCAFlGX6.99
My point is not that Bruce performs less well than concave anchors - although it does, in all but heavy weed which the Bruce's claws are good at holding - but that Bruce is not what's helpfully referred to as new-generation.
 
Last edited:
I'd need to disagree - there are Convex, Concave and Fluke anchors all offering a holding capacity 2 times that of the older models, they have all been introduced since the 90's. Spade, Fortress, Excel, Rocna, Supreme, Ultra and Kobra are examples and all have been tested independently by Classification Societies (or their equivalent) as have twice the hold of the older models (excepting Kobra). They all set easily and quickly. Again excepting Kobra they have all been Proof Tested - they all have 'credentials' To limit 'New Generation' to only concave was a ruse by Peter Smith to ensure only his anchor met HIS definition (which from memory resgtricted NG to demanding a roll bar - so where does his Vulcan fit?).

Just because you have not tried a Kobra does not mean it is not as good as a Spade.

One reason many have not migrated from, say CQR, to say Rocna is very simple - CQRs work for many people.

Modern anchors are grossly over specified and CQRs, Bruce and Delta worked for decades - they have not suddenly become useless.

Jonathan
 
Neeves said:
I'd need to disagree - there are Convex, Concave and Fluke anchors all offering a holding capacity 2 times that of the older models, they have all been introduced since the 90's. Spade, Fortress, Excel, Rocna, Supreme, Ultra and Kobra are examples and all have been tested independently by Classification Societies (or their equivalent) as have twice the hold of the older models (excepting Kobra). They all set easily and quickly. Again excepting Kobra they have all been Proof Tested - they all have 'credentials' To limit 'New Generation' to only concave was a ruse by Peter Smith to ensure only his anchor met HIS definition (which from memory resgtricted NG to demanding a roll bar - so where does his Vulcan fit?).

Just because you have not tried a Kobra does not mean it is not as good as a Spade.

One reason many have not migrated from, say CQR, to say Rocna is very simple - CQRs work for many people.

Modern anchors are grossly over specified and CQRs, Bruce and Delta worked for decades - they have not suddenly become useless.

Jonathan
Click to expand...

In support of Jonathan. I used a CQR for 19 years until it wore out (at the hinge). It's performance was little different from the Delta I had and, providing you took sufficient trouble to set it, it was trouble-free.
Perhaps people are misleading themselves, looking for the universal "best" anchor. Anchor choice of necessity depends on the bottom, into which the anchor is being set. No anchor works as well as a CQR on a gravel bottom, nothing compares with a Fortress in soft mud and I would prefer a Bruce over all else in a rock bottom, the concave anchors are at home in a sandy bottom. The one thing to avoid are "copy" anchors - I had a CQR version of one those: setting was a nightmare. I've seen many claw copies of the Bruce.
But, the poster asked for the "best value-for-money" anchor. For me that remains the Mantus, though I have as kedges a Delta and a Danforth, both of which have been used 8 times this last season (compared to 100 for the Mantus).
 
Neeves said:
I'd need to disagree - there are Convex, Concave and Fluke anchors all offering a holding capacity 2 times that of the older models, they have all been introduced since the 90's.
Click to expand...

We need a strict definition of 'New Generation Anchor'.
 
And in case someone has forgotten, or never knew - Peter Bruce patented the roll bar in 1970 (and a bit of trivia - I believe retired from Bruce Anchor, IoM early this year).


innovation is not limited to design, or shape -

Fortress led the way with alloy (against the idea then, and now, that anchors must be heavy). Delta used an alloy steel to provide shank strength (best promoted by Smith junior as Bis 80 on Rocna). Anchor Right have built on both these concepts using a 7075 alloy shank (almost 600 MPa). Spade introduced the hollow shank (engineering strength rather then using strong steel). Innovation, or development, is not limited to design

The difference between most recent anchors is, for whatever reason, they consistently in virtually every test return approximately twice the hold (when comparing similar weights or physical size) and develop that hold quickly and reliably compared with older (Delta and earlier) models. Calling them 'New Generation', 'Second Generation' or 'Modern' is just semantics.

But being, increasingly, repetitive - modern anchors are grossly over specified and there are many happy and relaxed owners with the early designs.

Use the correct anchor in the appropriate seabed and it will be dependable and if that is 'your' seabed well and good. But no anchor is excellent in every seabed - which is why one anchor might be a disaster in one seabed and 'the best' in another.

Anchors are a compromise.

Jonathan
 
I don't mind a collective term, saves typing, Rocna, Supreme, Ultra, Spade, Excel, Fortress, Kobra, Knox (with apologies to those I've missed) and saves offending anyone when one is missed :)

New Generation, I think, was coined by Peter Smith. He had a definition on his website, might still be on his website - but it was carefully defined to exclude anything except Rocna (except, like patents, it was impossible to make it watertight - it did not really stand up to other developments and trying to exclude Spade was, in my very, very humble opinion, downright daft).

Jonathan
 
Neeves said:
I don't mind a collective term, saves typing, Rocna, Supreme, Ultra, Spade, Excel, Fortress, Kobra, Knox
Click to expand...

A collective term everyone agrees on, yes. Is there such a thing? Kobra's just a plough - debatable if that's a different design to a CQR. Fortress is just a Danforth - I can't see how that's a new design - fluke anchors have been hanging off ships for nearly 200 years. It's all very subjective.

Anchors marketed since 1995? (but then we'll just squabble about the date.)
 
Roberto said:
No it was Alain Poiraud (Spade father, RIP, whom I knew personnally) who used the NG term for the first time, must have been early 2000s, well before the past decade multiplication of NG anchors of any type.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, thanks!

Anchor threads and squabble? Surely not!

Jonathan
 
I don't think we should become too hung up on the definition of the term "New Generation" anchor. It has been suggested that all newer models qualify as "New Generation". For me that does not work because there are many new designs that have been developed that are not high performers.

The DC anchor is just one example. This was released by Plastimo I think after they released the Kobra anchor so it is a reasonably new design. In my view it is not a high performer. I would rate it slightly worse than the Kobra.

zGEfr3w.jpg


So perhaps we need a new term like "High Performance Anchor". In this category I would personally include the Mantus, Rocna, steel Spade, and Manson Supreme. It is unlikely we could reach a consensus, but I think most would put these models near the top of the performance list.

There are some less popular models such as the Knox that have a strong following. With more independent evaluation they might well qualify for inclusion in this group.
 
Until anchors are tested against their peers and some measure made of their performance, call it hold, then I do not see how some anchors can be included or even categorised. For example I have never seen any reliable hold test data on the DC anchor so cannot imagine why it would be included in the first place. It may be a joke but I was led to believe that DC was an abbreviation of Delta Copy - and as far as I know it mimics the performance of a Delta (but is simply cheaper than the original). As an aside - it is not (as far as I am aware) a Plastimo model (they might merchant it - but its not 'theirs' and is sold worldwide where Plastimo have no presence).

Consequently for an anchor to be considered as High Performance then their needs to be some supportive hold data and some robust argument for the exclusion of other models (that do have hold data). I don't think hold can be the only measure, though it could be a first sieve.

I note the preceding list and thus cannot understand on what measure, for example, Fortress could be excluded. On a weight to hold measure in any number of tests it beats every other anchor hands down in sand. On a surface area measure it beats every other anchor hands down - so why exclude it from 'high performance'? It does have performance weaknesses, show me an anchor that does not.

There are anchors whose names are banded about as being 'good' but some of them have no comparable performance data - at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top