Best Value For Money New Generation Anchor

[BelleSerene]

But it seems a bit pointless to refer to the advantages (as quoted by BelleSerene) of the old design, and then say that the current isn't the same.
Then to refer to a "genuine drop forged" CQR as being superior, at the same time as saying theirs is a newer method of construction seems contradictory.

Absolutely! It's charging a premium to revert to (the best of) old technology.

But then, nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

 

[GHA]

The problems I have with the notion of ideal anchors for each ground is that you often don't know what the ground is - today's charts have minimal information in comparison to older ones. And I only have one windlass. I don't really see me scouting around an anchorage and then swapping anchors over (and how would I know what was really best without diving down?)

Same for probably nearly all cruisers living on the hook. Good design of a decent size with cater for a very large majority of situations, really thin sloopy mud being one exception where a fortress comes into its own. Those bottoms are usually well known about in the cruising guides or with a little time on google.

 

[Neeves]

Same for probably nearly all cruisers living on the hook. Good design of a decent size with cater for a very large majority of situations, really thin sloopy mud being one exception where a fortress comes into its own. Those bottoms are usually well known about in the cruising guides or with a little time on google.

I might add to mud: seabeds with stones, pebbles, cobbles - again not very frequent but I know of 2 we use maybe 4 times a year. Denser weed, of various types, is another one, usually very well documented. One that is not well documented is very soft sand, where again a Fortress is excellent (you know because its sand and the anchor does not set quickly). Finally hard seabeds - and I actually know of none.

Any other 'difficult' seabeds?

So as GHA implies its not a major issue, usually one you can anticipate.

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

One of the "difficult" ones that I know of is in Croic "harbour" in the Monachs, out to the west of North Uist. It's quite shallow, and looks like sand, but behaves like a thin layer of sand on top of a bed of smooth rock. :disgust:

When anchoring, I use a Fish Finder, and I find that it gives me a pretty good indication of what is suitable, and what isn't.

 

[Neeves]

We have one in SW Tasmania, Bramble Cove, it looks like sand but the sand is only about 50mm thick (though I guess it varies) underneath are angular stones about 50mm in diameter - much, infinitely, easier than smooth rock - but not what you expect. I suspect many of the other anchorages nearby are not dissimilar. The water is 'clear' but stained with tannin and you cannot see anything (its like strong tea), unless you venture into/under the water.

Bigger stones will jamb in a fluke and Jamieson Bay (delightful and isolated location) on Lady Barron Island, southern portion of Bass Strait, NE Tasmania has head sized (and smaller) rocks that fill part of the bay. The water is crystal clear (and very cold) but not a place to anchor with a roll bar anchor. Definitely one of the places where changing anchors might be a good thing (if you carry and can use alternate styles).

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

I might add to mud: seabeds with stones, pebbles, cobbles - again not very frequent but I know of 2 we use maybe 4 times a year. Denser weed, of various types, is another one, usually very well documented. One that is not well documented is very soft sand, where again a Fortress is excellent (you know because its sand and the anchor does not set quickly). Finally hard seabeds - and I actually know of none.

Any other 'difficult' seabeds?

So as GHA implies its not a major issue, usually one you can anticipate.

Jonathan

I was caught on the hop at a talk I did at Barry YC in South Wales. I was asked what was the best anchor to use in pebbles, which is apparently a relatively common seabed in the Bristol Channel. I confess I could not give a satisfactory answer.

 

[Neeves]

I was caught on the hop at a talk I did at Barry YC in South Wales. I was asked what was the best anchor to use in pebbles, which is apparently a relatively common seabed in the Bristol Channel. I confess I could not give a satisfactory answer.

Of available anchors

Spade and Kobra, weight in the toe, no roll bar (for the Kobra - long narrow fluke, downside - questionable shank strength, for the Spade - profiled shank). Here, Oz, where neither the Kobra or Spade are stocked - Anchor Right's Excel - sharp toe, weight in the toe, no roll bar. Roll bars are simply ill designed to push into pebbles.

Vulcan - don't know, has the right shape, profiled shank - but no weight in the toe.

But if the pebbles are big enough they can get caught under the shank and on the fluke - so no anchor is immune (but might be pushed aside by the convex fluke of Kobra and Excel).

We would not consider using our Fortress, waste of time.

We have not been defeated with our Excel.

As an aside - I wonder how much it would cost to the buy a Kobra, have a 800 MPa shank made, welded in place and the whole thing galvanised.

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

Perhaps a little large to qualify as a pebble. I have seen several photos of Bruce anchors that hooked rocks but this one of mine is the only Rocna so far.

 

[noelex]

The main problem with a a pebbly substrate is that it does not provide much resistance. Many anchor designs will hold satisfactorily in mild/moderate wind, but cannot develop enough resistance to hold the boat in a stronger wind.

An anchor with a large fluke surface area seems to be the best answer, like many of the new generation anchors.

This is a photo of a Delta struggling in a pebbly substrate:

As was this Kobra. These convex plough anchors do not have enough surface area to develop a lot of grip in this kind of substrate . The problem is compounded when there is some underlying rock and the anchor needs to develop all its holding power in a relatively thin layer.

 

[Neeves]

Perhaps a little large to qualify as a pebble. I have seen several photos of Bruce anchors that hooked rocks but this one of mine is the only Rocna so far.

I have a friend who is a Lt Commander, Reserve, in the RAN and to keep up his ticket he delivers Navy vessels from Brisbane to North Queensland. They anchored (or that was the intention) well north, inside the Barrier Reef using a 70kg genuine Bruce. They could work out why the anchor was 'sort of' holding, it was heavy - so pulled it up - and found as you illustrate a fluke sized piece of coral jammed between fluke and shank - it took considerable ingenuity with a crowbar (something we all carry!) to free the anchor.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

Noelex,

I'm most surprised you do not have images illustrating your assertion that a modern anchor with a large fluke area will be the best answer in the seabed you illustrate.

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

I have a friend who is a Lt Commander, Reserve, in the RAN and to keep up his ticket he delivers Navy vessels from Brisbane to North Queensland. They anchored (or that was the intention) well north, inside the Barrier Reef using a 70kg genuine Bruce. They could work out why the anchor was 'sort of' holding, it was heavy - so pulled it up - and found as you illustrate a fluke sized piece of coral jammed between fluke and shank - it took considerable ingenuity with a crowbar (something we all carry!) to free the anchor.

Jonathan

I've had that two or three times with a Bruce. The two methods that I have used successfully are either to drop the anchor smartly to the seabed, which normally dislodges the boulder, or attach a line to the tripping hole, and lower the chain, capsizing the anchor.

 

[C08]

Thanks for all the responses, experiences and musings on this. The Knox anchor is interesting to me in that it seems to combine the penetration of the Fortress with the design features of the Rocna/Manson and could explain why in the (Knox own) comparisons the Knox does very well. Another thought is that the gap between the pointed flukes could allow soft mud to ooze between the fluke and hence lose a bit of holding grip? The Knox site is very convincing but a bit light on detail such as fluke area so design specs are difficult to compare as most other NG anchors show the fluke area. In particular for my little boat the fluke area of the 13kg Knox would be interesting to know so as to be able to compare it with the spade/rocna/manson. To give a fuller comparison between anchors it is a pity that the Knox site does not include the Fortress in the comparisons. Even if the Fortress was a little better in ultimate holding the limitations of the Fortress to rebed itself on changes of direction the Knox could still be best as a general purpose anchor? Anyone got these dimensions and thoughts about the Knox in particular.

 

[doug748]

........ Anyone got these dimensions and thoughts about the Knox in particular.

Not much really, except that I am interested to see how the Knox fares when it is included in independent tests, plus it's reset performance.

 

[Neeves]

Noelex,

In the absence of any photographs I assume your comments, like many of your other comments, are pure speculation and actually you know nothing about the performance of other anchors in the seabed in your images. There are too many people happily using Kobra here to take any notice of your condemnations - especially as you simply could not identify that a Kobra you damned was assembled incorrectly.

I note you are unable to support your contention that a large anchor, particularly a Mantus can be used at short scope ratios. Here are a couple of videos of someone setting a Mantus at short scope.


I do not know who made these videos. The author says he is able to develop 1,000kg of tension with his engines - he either has a very large auxiliary engine - or made an error.

In the first video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Vq0nWI3HI#t=28.269549155

The author is setting a 48kg Mantus anchor at 3:1. Note the angle of the shank, seriously ‘skying’. The anchor might hold his maximum power, whatever it is?, but the fluke/seabed angle is less than 16 degrees. The fluke is sitting almost flat in the seabed - any hold is illusory.

In the second video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oAo5kKCn_o

The author is setting at 2.5:1 scope ratio and cannot get the anchor to set and hold engine power.

My conclusion is that it is unwise and unsafe to set a Mantus, or any anchor, at 2.5:1 (or even 3:1) for an overnight stop and the idea that it is possible to engender any degree of safety with a Mantus at a low scope ratio is.

Nonsense.

Having said that we can set our anchors, Spade, Fortress and Excel at 3:1 with ease and develop hold - its our standard practice (we would then deploy more rode/scope).

I suspect many of your other pontifications are equally dangerous and irresponsible. Fortunately I don't think people here are so gullible but I do note a number of members of CF have bought Mantus on the basis of your thread and they may think you have actually tried and can support some of the things you suggest.

All you need do is justify the following statements:


I have asked: Justify saying a Mantus is better than Rocna; a Mantus allows one to use short scope; explain the contradiction that modern anchors set with toe and shackle simultaneously, but a Mantus does not exhibit this; provide the data that supports your idea that a bigger anchor of the same design is better than a small one in a difficult seabed and explain your complete absence of comment on the torn cracked toe of your favourite anchor. When you have finished that - maybe discuss fluke/seabed angles, or lack of.

Jonathan

edit

For the image on Fluke/seabed angles:

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?487814-Rocna-or-Vulcan/page3

Post # 27

The unattributed image was taken from an article in the Feb '17 issue of Practical Sailor. The article discusses the impact of fluke/seabed angles.

The image shows the typical attitude of a set Rocna and a set Mantus, with fluke seabed angles of about 30 and 16 degrees. If the 'long' of the shank of the Mantus (the long to which the shackle is attached) is well above the horizontal 'skying' then the fluke is tending toward horizontal - and has little effect on hold. Check the angle of the fluke in the 2.5:1 and 3:1 scope ratio videos, and other images.

A fluke at 16 degrees has about 50% of the hold of the same sized fluke at 30 degrees.

close edit

 

[Neeves]

Not much really, except that I am interested to see how the Knox fares when it is included in independent tests, plus it's reset performance.

I can confirm to my cost that the Knox sets more deeply than similarly weighted anchors (and can be a devil to retrieve) - excepting a similarly sized Fortress which sets more deeply. In incremental changes of tension it performs the same as any other anchor, so slowly rotates with the change in tension and does not trip. But this is true of any well set anchor. As many suggest most wind changes are incremental. I have not tried a somersault test - its too complex a test to establish properly for one anchor.

I would recommend that in softer substrates, add a float and tether to the roll bar it might be easier to retrieve backwards. I don't know, yet, how it will perform in gloopy mud. It does catch grass in the split fluke and I'm guessing it will catch the odd pebble or shell (this might be an issue in seabeds with oyster).

My reservations are:

Does it fit your bow roller - it certainly does not fit ours. But ours is a bit unique

The collection of mud in the fluke pockets which if not cleaned off will accelerate corrosion. Some muds are aerobic, host creatures that exude sulphuric compounds which 'eat' gal as a primary source of nutrition You can tell if your mud is an issue - your gal will go black. But retained mud in the pockets will be damp )and be kept damp in rain - not the best way to store your anchor - so it needs to be cleaned.

It does collect mud in/on the fluke, but it is slightly easier to wash off - I think because of the split fluke.

It does collect 'stuff' in the split of the fluke - it can be difficult to remove when rammed in (I'd like them to weld the tip together)

I have been testing a 13kg model on and off. I cannot contradict the idea that it will replace a modern 15kg steel anchor. I think it over engineered - its built to last for ever and subjectively is the strongest anchor I have seen. Its exceptionally well made and galvanised. It has huge credibility behind the design.

Jonathan

 

[Flica]

I was caught on the hop at a talk I did at Barry YC in South Wales. I was asked what was the best anchor to use in pebbles, which is apparently a relatively common seabed in the Bristol Channel. I confess I could not give a satisfactory answer.

I found the CQR satisfactory, but had only about 3 occasions during the 15 years of use.

 

[vyv_cox]

I found the CQR satisfactory, but had only about 3 occasions during the 15 years of use.

I think that was what the questioner was using. 'If it works, keep doing it' was the gist of my reply.

 

[noelex]

Noelex,
I'm most surprised you do not have images illustrating your assertion that a modern anchor with a large fluke area will be the best answer in the seabed you illustrate.

Noelex,
In the absence of any photographs I assume your comments, like many of your other comments, are pure speculation and actually you know nothing about the performance of other anchors in the seabed in your images.

There were several boats with different designs of anchor in the gravelly anchorage where I photographed the Delta and Kobra posted above. Some caution is needed when looking at anchors in difficult substrates where results can be erratic I have posted the images of all the anchors that I saw at this anchorage in other threads so you can review them all and make up your own mind.

Here is a couple of anchors in the same anchorage performing better than the Delta or Kobra. These anchors are a couple of examples of designs that in my view are a better choice than a convex plough anchor in this type of substrate.

This is a Mantus at the same anchorage:

This was a Manson Supreme at the same anchorage:

There are too many people happily using Kobra here to take any notice of your condemnations - especially as you simply could not identify that a Kobra you damned was assembled incorrectly.

I do not condemn the Kobra. It is a good anchor, and is particularly good value for money, but in my view its performance is not as the same league as anchors such as the Mantus, Rocna and steel Spade to name a few.

The Kobra was definitely assembled properly. I don't think it possible to assemble it incorrectly unless the bolt is left out. I have photographed a Kobra that was deployed without the bolt. Underwater this is very obvious and the anchor does not work at all.

 

[Neeves]

I am the first to admit that in hard beach sand the Mantus is excellent - in terms of ease of setting. Most of us don't own a Southerly so the need does not really arise, to anchor on a beach. But move to more common seabed, real life, and you will not tell the difference in setting speed but you will tell the difference in hold - unless you grossly oversize and carry a mobile mooring.

But the reality is that a Kobra of the same weight as a Mantus will have better hold. Difficult for you to stomach - but the truth is never easy too accept, nor is it easy for YOU to prove otherwise, hence your reticence.

Odd that you have not rebutted the 2 videos, maybe they cannot be rebutted?

Jonathan