Panope Vid No 138

boomerangben said:
The current ‘arms race’ of anchors is rather conveniently fed by us forumites and YouTubers who spend lots of time and money discussing and upgrading their hooks
Click to expand...

Frequent upgrading of an anchor based on new tests or discussion sounds unlikely to me. I imagine a more likely scenario would be a single upgrade to a NG anchor. In all these discussions I've never heard of someone swapping one NG anchor for another.
 
A point that is being missed in recent posts is that people here, in general have owned yachts for years, some many decades. Their father taught them to sail (and anchor)

Many are entering the pastime, industry without this in depth knowledge and are learning, hopefully from the printed media, here and on the water (and making their own mistakes).

Most here have an inkling of which anchors are good and bad - you do not represent everyone. About 5 years ago I met someone who had just bought a Manson Plough, I hid my incredulity - but here copy CQRs are on every chandlers shelf - tell me UK chandlers don't have CQR copies! Tell me Lewmar don't have market for their CQRs and Delta - they just have them in their catalogues for historic reasons?

To put this in context:

Whitworths is our local chandler chain, 16 stores round Oz

A 15kg Supreme costsA$649
A Lewmar Delta 16kg, A$459
A Manson Plough 15kgA$499

Over a couple of years the difference in price between the Manson Plough and the Supreme is zilch - but they are stocked on our chandler's shelves because people buy them. (Being cynical because the chandler knows they will come back :( ). Also being cynical - why do Manson continue to make their Plough, Ray.....

Join the real world - people will require help with their choices of any, most, sailing kit - including anchors.

Hopefully many of them will find or be introduced to YBW - it will bring colour to their lives.....:)

I think these new to the experience buy a spanking new yacht or a decent second hand version and the first thing their wife suggests - lets go to xyzzy for the weekend - the learning curve is steep - but they form a large part of what is keeping the anchor industry in business. At the Sydney International Boat Show, finished Monday night, the most common anchor was a Delta - if they anchor, how long before they beat a path to Rocna, Vulcan, Excel, Supreme (in Oz no Knox, Mantus, Epsilon (no stock), Viking, Kobra, Spade....)

If you have a Rocna you may buy another NG anchor, recognising that the choice is a compromise and/or they may lose an anchor - but actually replace it - very unlikely.

We, or at least I, complain at the frequency of upgrades of electronic kit - the anchor industry is no different, though its a different time scale. Arguably Rocna has been replaced by Vulcan and Delta by Epsilon and there are constant new entries, Mantus and Viking - people lose their anchors, we sell out yachts and don't like the anchor on the bow roller of the next yacht - anchor makers also need to innovate or their market is stolen by the new kid on the block. If our new yacht has a Delta (previous owner did not anchor overnight) do we simply buy the anchor we had before - or do we check the anchor threads on YBW.....?

We may still buy another Rocna but I bet we check, or remember, the threads.

Jonathan
 
I have a 15kg Claw/Bruce anchor on the front of my boat, it came with it when I bought her in February. It only had 30m of 8mm chain so I blew some cash on 60m of the same - save the 30m for second anchor, etc..
It's an Aquador 32C, about 5t. Vastly different boat from the Yamarin 59HT I had before - 19ft sportsboat - so I am on a learning curve in that anchoring overnight is new to me as the guy doing it rather than being in a mate's boat. But I have grown up by the water and boating since childhood.
I have been reading the various anchor threads - such passions aroused - and watched the videos. The Panope ones are good, they are informative, but it seems to me that you have to watch them with a critical eye and to apply common sense - which, after all, isn't always that common. To do a test on anchor resets where he motors backwards at 3.5kts bears no real life event. Equally to rate the Bruce at 3 on his chart when it never jumped from the seabed, so no reset needed, and it took 800lbs plus of pull to make it drag - slowly. So far in my limited cruising I have always woken up where I went to sleep. No severe conditions thus far - 20-30kts of wind funnelling down the harbour the worst - but I hope to get to get to Scilly before the summer is over post harvest. I want to be able to sleep soundly over there.
My view is to watch the videos, use my pragmatic temperament and then take the view of very experienced sailors like Vyv cox - those who are out there doing it in real life.
I will stick with the claw for now, I have a Fortress type anchor for backup for the sand on Scilly and see how it goes for now. Maybe a Rocna or similar this winter.
 
Did I not read that in one of his test he down graded the Rocna because in mud it dont reset because mud get heap up around the hoop .

The Manson I'm using now also as hoop ,
We Been anchoring mostly in mud for six weeks and we not had a problem with reset ,
The bloody thing come up nearly everything caked in mud.
thats the bit I dislike make a mess of the foredeck.
 
sailaboutvic said:
Did I not read that in one of his test he down graded the Rocna because in mud it dont reset because mud get heap up around the hoop .

The Manson I'm using now also as hoop ,
Click to expand...
I suspect that he did his damnedest to do that because Morgan's Cloud removed the Rocna from their list of approved anchors for that reason.

Manson and Rocna are so similar that what applies to one almost certainly applies to the other.
 
thinwater said:
That sounds rather like the people that accept the religion of the fathers, never have researched it or any other. The assumption being father knows best, and his father, and his father before him.... Which is unsettlingly common. It is easy, though.

Unless you have used many anchors, and investigated the statements of many others, then you only know one thing. Once upon a time I though Danforth was pretty good. I was told Delta was good, and I used that for a few years. And then I looked around and found other anchors. Progress is based on curiosity and testing. This is true of all sailing gear. There is a lot of traditional stuff we use because we like the idea of it and it is good enough, not because it is best or even very good for the sailing we do.
Click to expand...
I think there are (at least) two different approaches, one is trying and find the "best anchor" for some given conditions, the other to find the best practical compromise.
Think a multidimensional matrix with all anchor types, all anchor weights, all types of anchor rodes, etc etc with efficiency ratings for setting, types of bottom, straight holding, 180 reversals, sitting on the davit, etc etc. You will agree no amount of testing will ever be able to provide anything like that, let's say it exists.
Each combination will outperform others in some specific cases. In practical terms what one needs is an anchor/rode multidimensional rating envelope which is satisfying, and that is what happens in practice: if anchoring is of paramount importance, one will only be happy after having found its correct combination by direct experience.
The "General Anchor Theory Matrix" will show better peaks/local maxima in many conditions, intellectually interesting maybe but what practical use? Should one consider each time "hmmm, under these conditions the best anchor would be one with 30% of fortress charcteristic, 20% spade, 30% ABCD anchor with a flavouring of CdeF and FGHI anchors".
Find a personal envelope which is satisfying, at least one can trust it (may I add, I prefer to make mistakes for my own wrong choices than make them because I followed some "guru" advice), there will be different choices all equally satisfying, the importance being the envelope exceeding a given efficiency boundary, much more than the theoretical "best" encompassing all local bests and needing a hundred different anchors/rodes to be kept onboard.
 
sailaboutvic said:
Did I not read that in one of his test he down graded the Rocna because in mud it dont reset because mud get heap up around the hoop .

The Manson I'm using now also as hoop ,
We Been anchoring mostly in mud for six weeks and we not had a problem with reset ,
The bloody thing come up nearly everything caked in mud.
thats the bit I dislike make a mess of the foredeck.
Click to expand...

I have had the Manson Supreme clog and not reset. Over night anchoring, more than the usual mud, concentrated in the back. It depends on the mud and how many times you use it. Not often, but it can happen, and then it does not hold beans.
 
I follow these threads with interest, though I do not test anchors any more. Maybe some day, if something new and interesting come up.

I see two schools.
  • Those that want to maximize weight:hold in sand and other good bottoms. Most areas have good bottoms, and if there is a storm, they plan on anchoring over a good bottom. Makes sense.
  • Those that want the "least bad" performance on crappy bottoms. I fall in the latter catagory, since it suits my needs better. All of the NG anchors are plenty good enough on good bottoms, so that is not what I worry about. It's weed, gravel, hard pan, and variable bottoms that vex both anchors and me. The problem is that testing on crappy bottoms is practically impossible to define.
And that is why I stopped testing anchors. I felt I could not define the problem simply enough to get results within the amount of effort I was willing to expend. Anchor testing is also hard work.
 
thinwater said:
I have had the Manson Supreme clog and not reset. Over night anchoring, more than the usual mud, concentrated in the back. It depends on the mud and how many times you use it. Not often, but it can happen, and then it does not hold beans.
Click to expand...
Maybe we just been lucky, 6 weeks other then a few days in mostly thick black sticky mud ,
I not saying it can't not reset ,
but as I posted the real test your own test not what some guy youtube the other side of the world .
This reminds me of the guy at the boat show some years back testing his anchor in sand using a pulling , nothing like we use to .
 
sailaboutvic said:
Maybe we just been lucky, 6 weeks other then a few days in mostly thick black sticky mud ,
I not saying it can't not reset ,
but as I posted the real test your own test not what some guy youtube the other side of the world .
This reminds me of the guy at the boat show some years back testing his anchor in sand using a pulling , nothing like we use to .
Click to expand...

... except Panope is provably right about the sticky mud reset problem, something that had been too widely ignored. I don't understand the divisiveness.

I've done real world, and I've done testing, and though I might differ with him in a few particulars, he has provided a lot of useful data. You have to push the conditions to get differentiation, since history tells us that you can make most any anchor work in 99% when anchoring over good bottoms, with good technique, lots-of-chain, overnight with lots of soak-in time, and winds under 35 knots. When the bottom is bad, the wind gets up, and there are sudden veers, you will separate the men from the boys. Yup, I can and have cruised with Danforth, Bruce, and Delta, without misadventure. I'd do it again without pause. But I would not buy one now that there are better choices. That is the point. When you buy a replacement, the new generation has advantages. Wouldn't it be disappointing if it did not? Children should go farther than their parents. I don't think anyone with Rocna, Excel, or Mantus would denigh that Danforth, Claw, Buggel, and CQR were amazing inovations that they built upon.
 
thinwater said:
... except Panope is provably right about the sticky mud reset problem, something that had been too widely ignored. I don't understand the divisiveness.

I've done real world, and I've done testing, and though I might differ with him in a few particulars, he has provided a lot of useful data. You have to push the conditions to get differentiation, since history tells us that you can make most any anchor work in 99% when anchoring over good bottoms, with good technique, lots-of-chain, overnight with lots of soak-in time, and winds under 35 knots. When the bottom is bad, the wind gets up, and there are sudden veers, you will separate the men from the boys. Yup, I can and have cruised with Danforth, Bruce, and Delta, without misadventure. I'd do it again without pause. But I would not buy one now that there are better choices. That is the point. When you buy a replacement, the new generation has advantages. Wouldn't it be disappointing if it did not? Children should go farther than their parents. I don't think anyone with Rocna, Excel, or Mantus would denigh that Danforth, Claw, Buggel, and CQR were amazing inovations that they built upon.
Click to expand...
Sorry to disagree ,
he hasn't proven anything re a rocna or Manson wont
Reset in mud .
Im living prove of that ,
We used a Ronca for 13 years anchoring in placing most people would nt dream of anchoring for 3 parts of each 13 years
So if I say my self I think I'm a better judge what a anchor I use regularly will do then some guy who finds a spot to serve his purpose to do tested.
I'm in no doubts his test useful to some especially thos with little anchor experience.
You can make anyone belive if you go on enough at them.

But please don't try and tell someone with over 40 years of most cruising and anchoring that his anchor he been using for well over 13 years wont Reset in mud,
.
Now as for the manson we only been using it since we had this boat , April , so far it's not let us down , if it does I will assess why it's let me down and take it from there.
For sure I won't be running out and buying somethink on some guy say so because it let me down once or twice.
 
For the record I'm not suggest Rocna is the one and only , not by far , I'm happy with the Manson I'm using at the moment admittly it's been mostly useful in mud , it be interesting to see how it performed once we get back to anchoring off shore in strong winds and on different sea beds , that be the test when I will decided to keep it or more on the some thing else and if I did it most likely be a Rocna.

Not because of what some YouTube want me to believe or because of some fantasy I have but because it proved itself works for us.
 
Vic, you cannot ignore the comment you made that your Supreme comes up covered in sticky, flithy mud - and I assume it takes you time to clean it. As you are cleaning the anchor your wife need command the yacht as you drift hither and thither (not much use if you are single handed). I see people here retrieving Supremes and Rocna's and they have the self same problem. If you anchor in mud that is what happens. The problem seems to be exacerbated with the concave fluke form and the roll bar which compresses the mud into the fluke. There is much less of this effect with non roll bar concave fluke anchors (though I can only talk of Spade in terms of long term experience - but Vulcan and Ultra?). It is of even less concern with convex anchors, Excel. Epsilon seems to fit somewhere between an Excel and a Vulcan.

I like an anchorage where I retrieve, the anchor is housed on the bow roller and I can walk back to the helm without switching the deck wash on. I confess to derive no pleasure from faffing about with a hose leaning over the bow maybe with a broom - trying to remove mud. Yes you can dangle the anchor and let the yacht movement under gentle motion do some of the work - but clean sand demands none of this. Mud of course is not only the anchor - it gets in all the links as well - give me sand, glorious sand and I'm a happy First Mate!

To me everything else being equal, which they are not, then it seems a very good reason to look positively at convex anchors and/or anchors with a shallow concavity, Spade and Viking.

To knowingly having mud as you most common seabed and choosing a Rocna or Supreme - seems perverse. But then I do object to the amount of mud they collect.

In sand none of this matters and most people will choose to anchor over sand because its nicer (as well as being clean on your anchor). Who with the wife and kids wants to anchor in mud if they can anchor in sand?

If you read my tests on anchoring in mud, chosen specifically to block the fluke, then if you simulate a 180 degree wind shift the anchor can pop out - and it will not reset until all the fluke has self cleaned - which maybe be 50m or never. Just think how long it takes to clean the fluke with your deck wash

Anchor Resetting Tests - Practical Sailor

My tests were contrived - but were established to be as realistic as possible to a wind shift, thunderstorm as an example, or in East coast Oz a sea breeze (35 kn NEly) replaced by a front off the Southern Ocean (40kn SWly). The tension direction I used was not particularly swift.

Personally we choose anchorages with sand, as they offer a better underwater view and muddy seabeds have less clean water (that's why its mud) so its all a bit academic for us. We do anchor in mud, needs must, but anchoring in mud, having a 180 degree tension change, having the new tension much larger than the original tension when the anchor was glued into the mud, power set/wind, - not often you get this combination of events that would cause the anchor to summersault.

If its only a 90 degree wind shift and is not sudden - the anchor will rotate and continue to hold (but will still come up full of mud).

To me the clean anchor alone is good reason to steer clear of Rocna/Supreme - there is a wealth of alternatives. Morgan's Cloud rejected Rocna and by association Supreme because there were yacht losses. At least one of these was with a Supreme in the Med (a chandler in Piraeus told me about one) - but MC made the grave error in not defining the vessels that ended up on beaches and it all seems like hearsay without the evidence. Interestingly there have been no reports since - suggesting you do need a critical set of circumstances that do not occur frequently.

If I had a Rocna (or Supreme) I would not change because it clogs with mud - they are too expensive, or the replacement is too expensive. I have better things on which to spend that money. But if I had a clean slate - Rocna and Supreme would be automatically rejected (because they collect mud that needs to be cleaned off). Cleaning off mud is not one of the Panope criteria - but to me seems as important as 'looking' at galvanising. Panope's rejection of Rocna, or its low score, is of an event that is very rare, there have been not one report since MC withdrew their rejection of Rocna and members here, huge number of whom use a Rocna, reject the criticism - the scoring needs to be placed in context of the actual risk and the environment in which the risk develops.

But I would reject other anchors for completely different traits - traits that are not 'uncovered' nor even mentioned on the Panope vids - which does make me wonder about hidden agenda's.

My conclusion is that clogging is very real but only in exceptional circumstances. Thinwater mentions anchoring in the Chesapeake - in the grand scheme of things sailing there is statistically not relevant (no reflection on Thinwater or the residents whose home waters they are). Most here will want to anchor on nice clean sand, many here sail the Med on the nice clean sand. On E Coast Oz our anchorages are largely nice clean sand (with a few muddy rivers). Most documented anchorages are clean sand and the few that are mud will only suffer catastrophic 180 degree wind shifts so seldom as not to be documented.

But, with that clean slate, the need for the deck wash is the killer for us.

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan
 
Hi Jonathan

I'm not at all ignore that the Manson comes up caked in mud , for the time being we happen to be anchoring where it's mostly mud and agree it's a right pain getting it off ,
Just tread on a spot and. It's all over the deck.
I hate the stuff.
But that's not the point here .
The anchors so far as not cause a problem resetting admittedly we have mostly used it inlands waters but even so we had some blows and many time we swing 360 current helps to keep the boat swinging.
So my experience so far with this anchor which happen to be a Manson is because the anchor as a hoop very similar to the Rocna being caked in mud has not stopped it resetting
That may change as time goes on but in a six week period used every day so far on mud, so far so good
So why should I or anyone else on the say so of some one else go out and replace it when it's doing the job requires of it?
as I'm sure you know our Rocna on our other boat was used in a very different ways
I would say 40% of out time was anchoring on the coast and not in shelter bays , the ground was anything and everything.
Many time we dropped in the dark and only god know what was under us but once set the Rocna stayed set.
If you remember my mishap last year , yes still have problem with the eye,
We was anchored off shore with open seas to one side , when we was hit by the storm the boat swing one way then the other for over an hour and a half ,
We had two snubbers snap in that storm ,
we had a job braking out the anchor and only doing so by driving hard over it , that came up coved in mud .
In my view the real test of any anchor is that way it performs when it's being used by you.
too many people go,out and buy what ever anchor on the say of some YouTube test , some are throwing money away when there no need to.
This doesn't only apply to anchor .
As for mud caked anchors
To be honest I say any anchor that would be use where we are now would be caked in mud , agree the mud would fall off quicker off some then other,
Two things a lot of boat have here in the Netherlands, bow thruster and some kind of deck wash you see the anchor person taken up a bucket to the bow even before the anchor start to come up.

What gets my goats is when some one tells me I'm burying my head in the sand not taken notice of some guy anchor video test
( not refering to you )
The only thing getting bury is my anchor .
Plus I don't have the time or data to waste watching YouTube man we met enough of that sort to know what's filmed is not always the truth.
 
Last edited:
sailaboutvic said:
Hi Jonathan

I'm not at all ignore that the Manson comes up caked in mud , for the time being we happen to be anchoring where it's mostly mud and agree it's a right pain getting it off ,
Just tread on a spot and. It's all over the deck.
I hate the stuff.
But that's not the point here .
The anchors so far as not cause a problem resetting admittedly we have mostly used it inlands waters but even so we had some blows and many time we swing 360 current helps to keep the boat swinging.
So my experience so far with this anchor which happen to be a Manson is because the anchor as a hoop very similar to the Rocna being caked in mud has not stopped it resetting
That may change as time goes on but in a six week period used every day so far on mud, so far so good
So why should I or anyone else on the say so of some one else go out and replace it when it's doing the job requires of it?
as I'm sure you know our Rocna on our other boat was used in a very different ways
I would say 40% of out time was anchoring on the coast and not in shelter bays , the ground was anything and everything.
Many time we dropped in the dark and only god know what was under us but once set the Rocna stayed set.
If you remember my mishap last year , yes still have problem with the eye,
We was anchored off shore with open seas to one side , when we was hit by the storm the boat swing one way then the other for over an hour and a half ,
We had two snubbers snap in that storm ,
we had a job braking out the anchor and only doing so by driving hard over it , that came up coved in mud .
In my view the real test of any anchor is that way it performs when it's being used by you.
too many people go,out and buy what ever anchor on the say of some YouTube test , some are throwing money away when there no need to.
This doesn't only apply to anchor .
As for mud caked anchors
To be honest I say any anchor that would be use where we are now would be caked in mud , agree the mud would fall off quicker off some then other,
Two things a lot of boat have here in the Netherlands, bow thruster and some kind of deck wash you see the anchor person taken up a bucket to the bow even before the anchor start to come up.

What gets my goats is when some one tells me I'm burying my head in the sand not taken notice of some guy anchor video test
( not refering to you )
The only thing getting bury is my anchor .
Plus I don't have the time or data to waste watching YouTube man we met enough of that sort to know what's filmed is not always the truth.
Click to expand...

Hi Vic,

I do remember and I am sorry to hear your eye is still a problem - I had hoped it would have resolved itself.

If you recall, if you read, Peter Smith's criticism of the Supreme - he said it was a crude copy of the Rocna (and Peter Smith should have looked at what he has copied before being critical of Manson) - or words to that effect (he had nothing good to say of the design) but I'd say it does have similarities and I have found its as good as a Rocna. The reason for the shape of the fluke is that Mansoon have 3 machines to roll steel - and they were under untilised and instead of bending plate they rolled the plate. Simple stuff. But they both have narrow 'exits' at the heal and both compress the mud. But blind fold you will not differentiate the performance of the two - nor if you had them handy would you distinguish them from Spade or Excel (except for the mud they carry - and you would need to take the blind folds off at that point :) ).

I don't think many would seriously tell you what to do - I look for your posts - as you know as much as anyone on the aspects important to cruisers - so don't take offence - not everyone here knows you well enough.


The worry is that a large majority here use a Rocna (and Supreme) without issue. There are more Rocna users world wide who don't post here but whom, if Rocna was as bad as portrayed, would dump the anchor over night (its rated alongside CQR!!). There is a concern it is being unfairly hammered (and I don't like Rocna, the bendy shank issue, but I dislike inaccurate criticism more) and thus the uninitiated are being misled - without explanation. I know people find anchor threads boring - but I, and some others, are re-dressing the balance in our small way and the only way we know how.


Your usage and description of usage is more background, good and bad (all anchors have good and bad) - its what someone who is contemplating an anchor purchase needs (and may save him from apologising for initiating an anchor thread).

More importunely - you are close to home - get that eye sorted!

Best wishes

Jonathan
 
@ Neeves
Johnathan eye been looked at three times now , each time I'm told no long term damage .not sure how long is long term .
In the mean time looking through a brown spider web in my left eye .
I keep being ask ,
What lesson did I learn .
My reply been , don't pick a fight with a snubber hook , your sure to lose.
 
Neeves said:
The Panope tests throw up, basically, a negative for Rocna - which makes little sense as it is one of the most popular anchors on bow rollers.

The big question is - how can the buying public, who have Rocna on their bow roller, have got it so wrong - or what is wrong with the test protocols? The question is obvious and unanswered.
Click to expand...
Dear forum members and Rocna Anchor( rollbar version) users. The answer might be that in the recent video it turned out as the clear winner of the test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top