Best Value For Money New Generation Anchor

[Neeves]

As they say, you pays your money and takes your pick.. (intentional pun)
I'd agree the Knox shows great promise, IMHO better than Excel, or any of the plough anchors (and I wore out a CQR over 15 years of intensive use).
But it does cost 30% more than the comparable weight Mantus.

Amazing skills, almost unique. Quite quite uncanny - you can tell the difference in performance between 2 anchors, and I'm sure a bit more, just by looking at some grainy images. You and Noelex could set up a consultancy - Bruce and Vryhof would pay a fortune and you would cut out all that arduous work for sailing magazines.

 

[Neeves]

Interesting comment

http://svragnarok.com/mantus-anchor-review-45lb-galvanized/

One drag in only the first month and use at short scope.

 

[Neeves]

Thousands of cruising boats don't have that choice of anchorages, take what you get. Which is why more and more switch to the better all round new gens. Of a size on the big side.

But Flica says - no - go bigger and the fluke/seabed angle reduces - which is why he says all Noelex images are of a poorly set anchor.

Confused!

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

I reckon that choice of anchorage for the conditions, and choice of suitable seabed, are far more important than the choice of anchor. Tens of thousands of boats anchor successfully with a huge variety of anchors. All this argy-bargy about the perceived benefits of different designs owes more to marketing and fashion, than it does to cold reality.
(Ducks, and runs for cover)

No need to duck for cover, Starzinger (sailed round the world) and also had a focus on high latitudes, and Novak, specialist in high latitudes and many unnamed others seem perfectly happy with CQRs and Bruce (cannot say I have heard of anyone extolling a Delta, but maybe also a Delta). Newer anchors set more quickly but the older styles seem to be holding their own - and offer a huge potential market that the new gen makers do seem to find difficult to address.

I find it interesting that the focus is on 'my new gen is better than their new gen' - rather than extolling the benefit of new gen (in general). Equally interesting is the mind set, 'I had a 20kg CQR thus my new gen should be 25 or 30kg' - makes little sense to me.

Jonathan

 

[Flica]

The fluke angle is largely a characteristic of design, not on the weight of the rode.

The 15kg Mantus I have has been used with 8mm chain, Goldilocks chain, not to heavy, not too light, just right. My images are the same as Noelex. Panope's images are the same as Noelex, except he shows the Mantus continuing to move in the seabed - something you would expect of a shallow fluke angle. Part of Noelex mantra is that a big anchor is 'better' than a small one - you seem to be saying a small one sets better. Noelex has said, I paraphrase - modern anchors set with the shackle and toe engaging together - all the videos contradict this, the shackle does not get near burying until all of the shank is buried. Noelex also says that you can use a mantus at short scope - you are suggesting that rode angle will reduce setting angle - which would mean at short scope the anchor would not set deeply - and safely.

Too many contradictions - you and Noelex cannot offer opposite conclusions of the same product - its a nonsense.

Fluke/seabed angle is primarily a function of design - which is why all the videos, all the still shots from a variety of sources show exactly the same characteristics. Without except the fluke angle is 16 degrees - I have yet, in all the images available, to see anything as high as 20 degrees.

Search and find me an image of the Mantus with toe and shackle burying together - and that will show a fluke angle of 30 degrees - which is how a Rocna, Supreme, Excel, Bruce, Delta, Spade set. Its a brave designed who steps outside the norm.

I can see you are totally persuaded of your point of view - and I do wish you would not misrepresent that which I write.
Shall we agree to disagree - as far as I know you are unique in banging-on about Mantus' 16 degree angle.
As NormanS points out these pseudo-scientific arguments mainly interest the fashion-obsessed.

 

[Neeves]

We had our mooring serviced today and our mooring contractor was describing a large mooring he installed a couple of years ago.

The mooring consists of three Danforth types, the anchors set at 120 degrees to each other with a central swivel and single riser. Each anchor weighs 1.25t. The anchors are connected together with 40mm mining chain (same as used on our 1.75t concrete mooring blocks). However the anchors are 'specially' chosen with a setting angle of 22 degrees, so that they shallow set. (A Fortress offer variation between 32 and 45 degrees). The shallow set it to allow the anchors to be retrieved easily as being shallow set they are easier to break out - but in a straight line pull they will hold the vessel on the mooring as they are oversized to allow for the reduction in hold in the horizontal direction. The mooring is for a 100' 'Gentleman's motor yacht' MV Cambria (might be Cambria II). The mooring is Lloyds approved.

I confess I was not aware that special anchors were available for this application nor that they tweaked the fluke/seabed angle.

Jonathan

edit

http://www.superyachts.com/motor-yacht-2438/cambria-ii.htm

close edit

 

[Mister E]

So which is the best value for money?
I have read lots of this and nearly lost the will to live over a lot of it. I am not interested in the angle of dangle just staying put in winds up to f5 in the UK.

 

[vyv_cox]

So which is the best value for money?
......... just staying put in winds up to f5 in the UK.

As the previous 206 posts in this thread suggest, there is no simple answer. A Delta is perfectly good in F5 on the sandy west coast but might very well drag in soft mud on the east. The CQR was developed in the Thames estuary, where presumably it worked quite well in 1934, but on the other side of the country it might well disappoint. There is little in technical terms to choose between the concave New Generation anchors, particularly in 'only' a F5, so best value depends entirely upon the price at the till. Just make sure that what you buy is the genuine article, as there are now many sub-standard copies.

 

[Mister E]

Viv thanks for your reply, I did remember your recommendation for the Delta very early in this thread.
I was hoping to learn more about the newer designs but the information seemed to stop. I think I will probably go for the Delta.

 

[vyv_cox]

Viv thanks for your reply, I did remember your recommendation for the Delta very early in this thread.
I was hoping to learn more about the newer designs but the information seemed to stop. I think I will probably go for the Delta.

Thanks. I used a Delta for many years and still carry it 'just in case'. It only ever let me down once, in a microburst storm at Nidri in questionable holding, mostly soft mud. I replaced it with a Rocna, which has been at least as good, although while mostly anchoring in Mediterranean sand I cannot claim its holding to be considerably better. I have photographic evidence of its ability to reset on 180 degree wind shifts, which for me is probably the most important property of a good anchor.

 

[Neeves]

There is an interesting article in the November issue of Practical Sailor (I hasten to add - nothing to do with me) which debunks the idea that there is any security with an anchor at short scope. The article is based on tests on small and full sized anchors, primarily NGs. Sadly I think the article is subscribers only and I'm thus unable to post - don't bite the hand that feeds you.

I await contradictory evidence to support the claims that a large anchor is safe at short scope.

I continue to maintain that the 'short scope' concept is unsupported by any practical evidence with 'our' vessels and making the claims are irresponsible nonsense. Hopefully this is an area covered by Richard's earlier post where he said that people would be able to determine for themselves the veracity of advise.

Jonathan

 

[Sybarite]

I have photographic evidence of its ability to reset on 180 degree wind shifts, which for me is probably the most important property of a good anchor.

However this was the specific criticism in the French tests.

What is the difference in cost between a generally recognized top performance anchor (eg Spade) and the various others?

£200 + or - ??

What does this difference represent in relation to the value of the boat - and one's sleep patterns?

 

[Neeves]

What is the difference in cost between a generally recognized top performance anchor (eg Spade) and the various others?

£200 + or - ??

What does this difference represent in relation to the value of the boat - and one's sleep patterns?

No-one has your clarity of thought nor ability to analyse.

On a cost per night over a few years a decent anchor costs almost nothing.

I've just glanced at some research, the article (in the Guardian) was prompted by the move in the UK to GMT and the extra hour in bed, suggesting that decent, longer uninterrupted sleep increases mental ability and reduces the risk of a whole number of life threatening issues, cancer etc etc. I noted that the same article was not published 6 months ago when the clocks went forward

I'd never considered a good anchor as being a benefit to either my brain nor health - don't tell the anchor makers! The next thing we know is 'my anchor is healthier than your anchor!'

Jonathan

edit

This is not the article (could not find it - and they don't appear to have a search facility), but its on a similar vein

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...-i-try-to-sleep-the-more-worry-keeps-me-awake

close edit

 

[Flica]

The various claims made for different anchors, IMHO, have a distressing tendency to smoke and mirrors effect.
The truth be told, if you anchor frequently, you develop a technique to suit the anchor you have, on the seabeds you frequently use, and you probably swear by that.
That a Spade is expensive to make is patently true - if it's "better" than a Mantus or a Delta (both cheaper to make) is subject to claims, which are, frequently, patent opinion.
If the "most expensive" is the criterion upon which you choose your anchor, then the forged-shank CQR or the SS Ultra probably win the race.
Of the anchors I've used I have definite opinions, but I would hesitate to make claims to infallibility, and treat with suspicions those who make factual claims, for an anchor I have frequently used, which "fact" neither I nor others are able to replicate.

 

[jordanbasset]

I think some people are wrongly equating the cost of an anchor with getting a good night's sleep.
I choose to get rid of an anchor that cost almost twice what my replacement anchor cost because I had confidence in the replacement anchor. The fact the replacement was cheaper and around £350 cheaper than a spade was a bonus.
As others have suggested having a good night's sleep at anchor is down very much to your anchoring style and having confidence in your chosen anchor based on your own personal experience.

 

[mattonthesea]

sorry if you have already mentioned this but SV Panope on you tube has a series of anchor tests fimed from just above the anchor. Very good.

 

[Sybarite]

The various claims made for different anchors, IMHO, have a distressing tendency to smoke and mirrors effect.
The truth be told, if you anchor frequently, you develop a technique to suit the anchor you have, on the seabeds you frequently use, and you probably swear by that.
That a Spade is expensive to make is patently true - if it's "better" than a Mantus or a Delta (both cheaper to make) is subject to claims, which are, frequently, patent opinion.
If the "most expensive" is the criterion upon which you choose your anchor, then the forged-shank CQR or the SS Ultra probably win the race.
Of the anchors I've used I have definite opinions, but I would hesitate to make claims to infallibility, and treat with suspicions those who make factual claims, for an anchor I have frequently used, which "fact" neither I nor others are able to replicate.

As they say in their publicity, Spade have been coming out on top of comparative tests since 1999. It's not because it's expensive that it's "better". It just is "better" and it just happens to cost a bit more. However the more confidence I have in my ground tackle the better I will sleep at night when the wind begins to rise.

There may not be much between certain anchors eg Buegel has not got much of a mention but when Amel choose it as OE then one should perhaps pay attention. Also Rocna since they have sorted out their metal problem gives almost as good a performance as the FOB Rock...

If there is one area in the boat's budget where I believe one shouldn't scrimp it's in relation to one's ground tackle. In some cases it's the last line of defense.

 

[vyv_cox]

eg Buegel has not got much of a mention but when Amel choose it as OE then one should perhaps pay attention.

But apparently Oyster still fit CQR as standard. Must be applying the 'costs a lot so it must be good' principle, (it is still one of the most expensive on the market) as I cannot see it being due to its performance.

 

[Flica]

As they say in their publicity, Spade have been coming out on top of comparative tests since 1999. It's not because it's expensive that it's "better". It just is "better" and it just happens to cost a bit more. However the more confidence I have in my ground tackle the better I will sleep at night when the wind begins to rise.

There may not be much between certain anchors eg Buegel has not got much of a mention but when Amel choose it as OE then one should perhaps pay attention. Also Rocna since they have sorted out their metal problem gives almost as good a performance as the FOB Rock...

If there is one area in the boat's budget where I believe one shouldn't scrimp it's in relation to one's ground tackle. In some cases it's the last line of defense.

Except that some anchors, such as CQR (with forged shank) which I happily used for 14 years, are now very, very expensive - and others such as the home-made Bugel, unbelievably cheap. So when the CQR wore out, I got an anchor with the largest fluke-area/weight, best galvanising, and cost of only $182.
I've now seen 2 Spades being returned for faulty galvanising, and though I fancied the alloy Spade as replacement to the CQR, the continued reports of electrolysis together with the price, dissuaded me.
Finally, for those who believe implicitly in the "authority" of tests.. I've been in marketing (pharmaceuticals, FLTs & automated warehouses) and know better.

 

[Neeves]

Unfortunately most anchor tests do not look at the integrity of build. But the tests that Vyv and I did on the Rocna debacle clearly and conclusively defined the issues - that were addressed and there has been no problem since. Practical Sailor conducted tests on the integrity of anchors resulting in major changes in construction of 2 anchors, which are now significantly better.

Based on a cross section of tests the anchors that people use here and the anchors that do well in tests have good agreement - which suggest the tests reflect performance - or people believe in the tests - take your pick. Many of the anchors that did not do well in tests, hold, convenience in use, price etc, - have disappeared.

Anchors will not last forever and I'm not quite sure why anyone should think they will - galvanising is an issue - evidenced by the number of painted anchors on bow rollers, of any type, and the number that are sent for regalvansing with chain. Specifically Spade had, I stress the had, an issue with electrolysis of the lead in the toe of the alloy model, they claim to have overcome the issue - and our alloy anchor (which is almost 10 years old now,) shows no signs of any issues. The issue is constantly repeated (in the same way bendy shanks are repeated) unfairly - as the issues appear to have been addressed). I believe, certainly in America, Spade have a replacement policy on galvanising of the steel models. The original Spade was introduced in the early 90's - its hardly surprising that galvanising might be an issue - and I still see some of the early models (with a stepped or terraced fluke top surface) - which seems to indicate that if looked after they will last.

Jonathan