Best Value For Money New Generation Anchor

If New Generation Anchor means an Anchor with an optimised geometry and modelled to provide optimum balance and angle of attack then the Kobra is a new generation anchor and as such is a great value for money because it's 1/3 of the price of some of the other anchors. I know that the Kobra shank is a bit flimsy but better have a shank that will bent due to ductility rather than a shank that is britlle able to snap off; this is the difference between fail-safe and catastrophic failure. So, the question of this post is "Best Value for Money New Generation Anchor" the answer must be the Kobra.
 
CAPTAIN FANTASTIC said:
If New Generation Anchor means an Anchor with an optimised geometry and modelled to provide optimum balance and angle of attack then the Kobra is a new generation anchor and as such is a great value for money because it's 1/3 of the price of some of the other anchors. I know that the Kobra shank is a bit flimsy but better have a shank that will bent due to ductility rather than a shank that is britlle able to snap off; this is the difference between fail-safe and catastrophic failure. So, the question of this post is "Best Value for Money New Generation Anchor" the answer must be the Kobra.
Click to expand...

Except in the French tests the FOB Rock had twice the holding power of the Kobra - straight pull.
 
Sybarite said:
Except in the French tests the FOB Rock had twice the holding power of the Kobra - straight pull.
Click to expand...

I simply do not know the FOB Rock :(. Sybarite - can you link to the tests - preferably in English, though if they are only in French - it will take me a little longer.

In the absence of detail I have to sympathise with the view expressed by Captain Fantastic's, it (Kobra) is good value for money. It would be interesting to know what seabeds were being used, does the FOB Rock stand out in weed, which is one of the strengths of the Kobra.

But Captain, brittle shanks, certainly for more modern designs seem to be something of the past and not reported recently.

Kobra, and worse FOB Rock, are not internationally available (mind you neither are Spade and Excel) - so if they are good value - they are not for everyone (unless you are visiting Europe and can get a smaller one in your luggage).

Jonathan.
 
Neeves said:
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
Click to expand...

If I might address your conclusions, which might appear superficial:-

1. that people agree with anchor tests has as much, surely, to do with the untutored seeking the opinion of the cognoscenti, rather than the exactitude of the tests?
2. certainly one must expect galvanising to wear - both Spades being returned were less than a year old and were definitely rusting fast - where the testers' comments? I reckon to regalvanise my anchor after about 600 deployments, in any case.
3. If one believes that the temperature of galvanisation de-tempers HT steel shanks (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030801619290121U), one should raise this issue on all welded anchors. However I note that you excoriate the Mantus alone, for having a welded nose weight, which you aver ensure breakage in use on a rocky bottom and make no mention of the fact that of all the concave anchors it is the only one that avoids the issue by having a bolted shank/fluke.

I must admire the balance of your judgement.

However, there are many issues on which I admire your outside-the box-thinking:- using lightweight high tensile chain, rather than 8 or 10mm G40, pinning your faith on aluminium anchors, refuting the "mud-weight" theorists who believe heavier is better.
Certainly anchor threads would be much shorter without your input!!
 
CAPTAIN FANTASTIC said:
If New Generation Anchor means an Anchor with an optimised geometry and modelled to provide optimum balance and angle of attack then the Kobra is a new generation anchor and as such is a great value for money because it's 1/3 of the price of some of the other anchors. I know that the Kobra shank is a bit flimsy but better have a shank that will bent due to ductility rather than a shank that is britlle able to snap off; this is the difference between fail-safe and catastrophic failure. So, the question of this post is "Best Value for Money New Generation Anchor" the answer must be the Kobra.
Click to expand...

Agree, while I would do wouldn't I. Have seen several anchor tests over the years the Kobra came out very well, certainly in the top 3 in all except the French one.
Link here to one of the anchor tests which the Kobra did well on, which tested 11 anchors, including 2 spades a manson and a Fortress
http://www.chainsropesandanchors.co.nz/image/data/PDFs/Yachting Monthly -Anchor Test Nov09.pdf
'Our underwater footage proves the excellence of the design – the Kobra was the second-best anchor on test – and its behaviour in use was reassuringly predictable. It never failed to set, always digging in rapidly and burying itself well. It’s assuredly the winner of this test. Taking into account the modest price tag, it’s excellent value-for-money.'

We do seem to be going around in circles on this thread but as others have said it is a question of confidence based on a combination of information and personal experience. If people are happy with their anchor and it works for them and their style of anchoring and places they anchor then that is the end of it.
 
Last edited:
What a strange post.

Flica said:
1. that people agree with anchor tests has as much, surely, to do with the untutored seeking the opinion of the cognoscenti, rather than the exactitude of the tests?

3. If one believes that the temperature of galvanisation de-tempers HT steel shanks (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030801619290121U), one should raise this issue on all welded anchors. However I note that you excoriate the Mantus alone, for having a welded nose weight, which you aver ensure breakage in use on a rocky bottom and make no mention of the fact that of all the concave anchors it is the only one that avoids the issue by having a bolted shank/fluke.

I must admire the balance of your judgement.

!
Click to expand...

On point ! - I made no comment - other than to suggest anyone could decide themselves.

On point 3, what a load of nonsense - why would galvanising of a shank have a different impact on the tensile strength of a HT steel whether it is attached or welded. In any case the Mantus shank is still welded - its welded to the flange.

I have seen no mention of the toe of the Mantus being HT or any specific steel - if the steel cracks at the weld, or if the weld itself cracks - its a manufacturing problem. Both original Rocna and bigger Supremes have a welded toe, but the weld is further toward the heel and 'supported' by the shank as the shank is welded across the 'toe weld'. I have never seen a cracked toe in any anchor - except Mantus - and it thus stands out. Bent toes I do see - cracked toes, only Mantus

There are many people using lightweight chain, and Peerless (largest leisure marine chain manufacturer in America) and Maggi make it. The fact they manufacture suggest people buy it. Its hardly an original idea. 500,000 alloy (call them lightweight Fortress anchors) seems to suggest I'm not alone in using alloy anchors - go to America and they are commonly used as primaries (even used as primaries on rather large Coastguard vessels). My use of alloy is hardly original. Neither HT lighter weight chain and alloy as a primary anchor is hardly outside the box.

Maybe I misunderstand, for which I apologise.

Jonathan
 
I have been for changing my anchor for about 10 years and always I get cold feet.
First I was attracted by a Rocna till they started making them out of Chinese mild steel or summat.
After finding a cheap (relatively) source for the Spade someone questioned the protective coating and indeed as I looked about I did see a number of them that were ratty round the edges. The closed section shank put me off as well, and the thought of running lead out and in a newish anchor, for re-treatment, scuppered that idea. I have just heard that they are ok "if you look after them" I have three ald British motor bikes so I have enough looking after on my plate.
I settled on a Manson Supreme, it fitted my bow and I was almost writing the cheque till I saw the Panope's brutal reset tests; a further black mark against the Rocna as well.
The Sarca looks weedy and impossible to source in the UK. The Mantus is similarly feeble looking, is the subject of controversy, and is held together by nuts and bolts.
Fob anchors no thanks. Fortress I would like only for a kedge, being just a Danforth in a new frock.

At present I am thinking about the Knox, I like a lot about it but will lurk further.
 
doug748 said:
I have been for changing my anchor for about 10 years and always I get cold feet.
First I was attracted by a Rocna till they started making them out of Chinese mild steel or summat.
Click to expand...

That episode was closed years ago when Canadian Metal Pacific bought Rocna out. http://rocna.cmpgroup.net Unless you're buying a second-hand one, in which case you need to be able to recognise the specimens produced in that weak period (and you can, visually), it's a non-issue.
 
BelleSerene said:
That episode was closed years ago when Canadian Metal Pacific bought Rocna out. http://rocna.cmpgroup.net Unless you're buying a second-hand one, in which case you need to be able to recognise the specimens produced in that weak period (and you can, visually), it's a non-issue.
Click to expand...

+1

Interesting history, but history none the less (and nothing to do with CMP, they just picked up the pieces).

Don't mistake the SARCA for the confusingly named - SARCA Excel, different animals.
 
Neeves said:
I simply do not know the FOB Rock :(. Sybarite - can you link to the tests - preferably in English, though if they are only in French - it will take me a little longer.

In the absence of detail I have to sympathise with the view expressed by Captain Fantastic's, it (Kobra) is good value for money. It would be interesting to know what seabeds were being used, does the FOB Rock stand out in weed, which is one of the strengths of the Kobra.

But Captain, brittle shanks, certainly for more modern designs seem to be something of the past and not reported recently.

Kobra, and worse FOB Rock, are not internationally available (mind you neither are Spade and Excel) - so if they are good value - they are not for everyone (unless you are visiting Europe and can get a smaller one in your luggage).

Jonathan.
Click to expand...

See link in post #137 to a comparative test by Voile magazine.

15kg..Spade (€520) ....2655kg Break out pull
16kg..FOB Rock (€361 ) 2179kg
15kg..Rocna (€349) ...2159kg
16kg Delta (€254) ... 1234kg
16kg Kobra (€185) ... 1037kg
16.5kg CQR (€1168) ... (results excluded : too unreliable.)

http://www.fob.fr/menu6d86.html
 
Last edited:
Sybarite said:
See link in post #137 to a comparative test by Voile magazine.

15kg..Spade (€520) ....2655kg Break out pull
16kg..FOB Rock (€361 ) 2179kg
15kg..Rocna (€349) ...2159kg
16kg Delta (€254) ... 1234kg
16kg Kobra (€185) ... 1037kg
16.5kg CQR (€1168) ... (results excluded : too unreliable.)

http://www.fob.fr/menu6d86.html
Click to expand...

Confirms my prejudices, about journalists doing anchor tests, as well as about the anchors mentioned, which are a very selective, short list.
No Brittany/Danforth/Fortress, so one whole class missing. Not knowing the substrate on which test was carried out - but if soft sand (and from the loading I'd suggest it's that) those three would be close to the top.
As with all things "horses for courses" or "anchors for bottoms". So scarcely comparative - except to the gullible.
 
If you follow the link in post #137 you find they do include Brittany, Danforth equivalent and Fortress. Sybarite didn't put them in his list presumably because this thread is about plough anchors - concave or convex. They also include some others as well such as Bugel and FOB Rock
 
Hoolie said:
If you follow the link in post #137 you find they do include Brittany, Danforth equivalent and Fortress. Sybarite didn't put them in his list presumably because this thread is about plough anchors - concave or convex. They also include some others as well such as Bugel and FOB Rock
Click to expand...

My list includes the anchors that we seem to talk most about. It is not exhaustive. After all, the title of the article makes reference to 14 anchors.
 
I have been looking at the Knox site and I am puzzled by the comparison of the Knox (by Knox) with the anchor comparisons by Prof Knox for PBO (https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...02103d72392/1489319853474/JHK+PBO+article.pdf ). Not just the comparisons but the way measurements were taken and the disparity with other tests.
In particular
the Knox website comparisons uses multiples of anchor weight as the measure of holding power e.g. up to 43x
The PBO article by Knox uses Kgf up to 500
Other comparisons and manufacturer claims quote holding up to 2000+Kgf
I can understand different site conditions giving different levels of holding that would favour some anchors against others but the use of a different comparitor on the Knox site puzzles me apart from the low general figures involved.
Any thoughts on this.
 
CO8, thanks for the reference to Prof Knox's article, which is a pleasure to read.
I think the results of all such tests have to be taken into consideration since any one test can't include all possible variables (anchor weight, type, sea bed type, scope, use of chain/rope, variations in angle of pull due to wind/tide changes - and there are probably a few more I haven't thought of!) in a single test series. His metric gives the efficiency of the anchor taking into account its weight, which allows anchors of slightly varying weights to be compared.
The differences in the nature of the sea bed, between different test series, will give substantial differences in anchor efficiency for the same anchor. There was a detailed test described in Yachting Monthly some years ago which gave very good results for Delta, for instance. Also you may recall a test series, by the makers of Fortress, where the sea bed was very soft mud, which gave good results for Fortress and rather poor results for other anchors. Which may be useful if soft mud is what you always anchor on.

Threads of this type are useful in that they give an overview of a number of tests plus an overview of practical experience. Always bearing in mind that what one is chiefly concerned with is not the maximum holding power is, but how much is available when you really need it ... what might stick in the memory is not the times when the anchor held, but the one time it didn't ...
 
As with all things the horse-for-course element is the most important.

Having done the exercise myself I bought a Mantus. In about 600 deployments it's dragged once, not set 3 times and (at age 81) is handleable.
Prior to that I was satisfied by a genuine CQR, I use Delta and Danforth as kedges, each has its strength.
The Spade is expensive to produce, the ROCNA profitable - neither have as good a TCO as the Mantus, and both demand a heavier model than do Mantus.
I do, however, believe the anchor is of far less importance than the person handling it.
The worst-ever anchor I have ever experienced was an SWMF plough copy of the CQR. It was cheap, though.

PS the CQR finally wore out after 12 years - the joint wore so badly that setting became totally unreliable. I've already had to replace one Mantus - it became iretrievably wound up with a mooring in 6m of water.
 
C08 said:
I have been looking at the Knox site and I am puzzled by the comparison of the Knox (by Knox) with the anchor comparisons by Prof Knox for PBO (https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...02103d72392/1489319853474/JHK+PBO+article.pdf ). Not just the comparisons but the way measurements were taken and the disparity with other tests.
In particular
the Knox website comparisons uses multiples of anchor weight as the measure of holding power e.g. up to 43x
The PBO article by Knox uses Kgf up to 500
Other comparisons and manufacturer claims quote holding up to 2000+Kgf
I can understand different site conditions giving different levels of holding that would favour some anchors against others but the use of a different comparitor on the Knox site puzzles me apart from the low general figures involved.
Any thoughts on this.
Click to expand...

As the MD of Knox Anchors Ltd, I appreciate reading feedback about the Knox Anchors website. We get significant correspondence from people who have questions and who then write and ask directly, and in most cases we can answer directly, in some cases, correct errors or typos and in one case admit to not knowing the answer. But asking in a public forum like this can give the opportunity for a direct answer too, but only as I'm an avid participant in these forums, and one who enjoys the benefits they bring.

As to the difference in the units used in measuring comparative holding power, in the PBO article versus the website; the main answer is that a multiple of anchor weight was easier to understand for more people. Some readers asked what kgf was all about. John Knox as a scientist is used to presenting material in academic circles. Writing for the general public whose educational background ranges from knowing more that the writer, to knowing very little science, (and a public whose background is not known), requires a level of simplicity to suit all, while not oversimplifying a complex subject so that the points being made get lost, or assertions made seem condescending.

There are possibly no topics that create such discussion as those on anchoring and anchors. My opinion is that this is largely due to such a wide ranges variables, many of which are continuously variable, and range of experiences that no-one has all the answers for all occasions, and no-one can make an assertion without someone arguing the opposite. Everyone is right sometimes, some more than others! :)
When trying to devise a true comparative test for anchors, eliminating some of those variables is essential to gain any meaning. Prof Knox standardised several variables. Same bit of sand for most of the tests, same rig, same angles, same pull technique etc. That means of course that in conditions eslewhere, in other than those exact ones, the results might not be true (or they might be). But to test all situations, with all anchors, in all conditions would be a lifetime exercise. Fortunately we have some old salts who have a lot of experience, but that is over a long time, and much was before the advent of new generation anchors such as Fortress, Knox, Mantus, Rocna, etc.

The PBO tests, and subsequent article were done before the development of the Knox anchor. Prof John set out to test a range of anchors using a standardised test. It was the disappointing results of those tests that caused him to move on to developing one that would perform better. That result was today's Knox Anchor, which incidently is apparently the only production branded anchor made in the UK nowadays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top