vyv_cox
Well-known member
I wish I had your grasp of metallurgy. Could have saved me months of work in industry.
STAINLESS ULTRA ANCHOR
- Thread starter TNLI
- Start date
- Status
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
My post is exactly on topic as it’s helping anyone new to boating and anchoring to ignore the dross and nonsense that fills your contributions.
I don’t need to repost links. I’ve commented on yours and pointed out how you misinterpreted their results.
boomerangben
Well-known member
TNLI
Well I’ve looked at the videos and links you have posted on the ultra. The first video didn’t even show it getting wet. Quite frankly it was anchor porn and nothing to do with testing. That’s not to say I don’t think it might be a good anchor, just that you are posting stuff that doesn’t have any substantive evidence it works any better than anything else.
To me it looks like stem candy. I personally don’t like big lumps of stainless on the bow, would not be bothered if paint flaked off a spade and in an idea world I would be using an anchor often enough that any rust would get rubbed off. The written review based on posts on forums seem to say it’s just as good as a spade. Is it worth it? Well that is for each of us to decide. I’m very happy with a dull grey piece of well engineered aluminium.
I am becoming increasingly aware that aesthetics are more important to you than hard facts. There’s nothing wrong in that. Just don’t be surprised when practical boat owners place more importance in practical aspects of their anchor
Well I’ve looked at the videos and links you have posted on the ultra. The first video didn’t even show it getting wet. Quite frankly it was anchor porn and nothing to do with testing. That’s not to say I don’t think it might be a good anchor, just that you are posting stuff that doesn’t have any substantive evidence it works any better than anything else.
To me it looks like stem candy. I personally don’t like big lumps of stainless on the bow, would not be bothered if paint flaked off a spade and in an idea world I would be using an anchor often enough that any rust would get rubbed off. The written review based on posts on forums seem to say it’s just as good as a spade. Is it worth it? Well that is for each of us to decide. I’m very happy with a dull grey piece of well engineered aluminium.
I am becoming increasingly aware that aesthetics are more important to you than hard facts. There’s nothing wrong in that. Just don’t be surprised when practical boat owners place more importance in practical aspects of their anchor
TNLI
Active member
I've already posted all the links that if you look at or read them will answer all of your questions. The graph is interesting, BUT in the real world no one keeps adjusting the fluke angle to match the type of holding, and in some cases you might not know if it's hard or soft sand. In the old days they used to sample the bottom with a special scoop to see what it was prior to anchoring.
The Ultra is a general purpose anchor, so no need to compare it with anything that is not a general purpose anchor in any real detail. It's also far tougher than nearly every NG and most of the OG anchors with the exception of the CQR and Bruce anchor. Oddly enough the fluke angle is very critical to the performance of a fishermans anchor, as Steve of SV Penope demonstrated in a test of a large fishermans anchor failed to set, when a Luke copy of the Mk 1 Herreshoff did set correctly.
Now for a link that is worth reading if you want to understand why I get some many negative replies to my posts and associated links in particular:
Rocna Resetting Failures and evaluation of Vulcan and Mantus (morganscloud.com)
Extract:
"The article resulted in more angry personal attacks on me than any other we have ever published, at least since we restricted comments to members".
OFF TOPIC DROSS AND NONSENSE WARNING
I can not understand why posters find is so difficult to accept that the anchor they have purchased might not be a good one, or that some old generation anchor like the CQR is in fact a real good anchor. It reminds me of a lecture by a military doctor who was talking about perception and how an adult learns how to understand an operational plan. What that chap said was that an unintelligent person that has formed an opinion about something will find it very difficult to change their mind when presented with new facts, and will often fail to read them and just stick to the opinion they already had, regardless of how the new information is presented. An intelligent person will read the documents and then do their own research to see if there is any other information available. They will of course have totally changed their minds about a subject.
Alas in this forum we have 2 regular posters who will never read or accept any new studies or test results, or consider another posters opinion as being of interest. Unfortunatly they often reply before I've even finished editing a post, which might be half an hour sometimes. Obviously such people tend to be rude or blunt in communication terms, although that is common with public forums that are not moderated for abusive or off topic posts.
The Ultra is a general purpose anchor, so no need to compare it with anything that is not a general purpose anchor in any real detail. It's also far tougher than nearly every NG and most of the OG anchors with the exception of the CQR and Bruce anchor. Oddly enough the fluke angle is very critical to the performance of a fishermans anchor, as Steve of SV Penope demonstrated in a test of a large fishermans anchor failed to set, when a Luke copy of the Mk 1 Herreshoff did set correctly.
Now for a link that is worth reading if you want to understand why I get some many negative replies to my posts and associated links in particular:
Rocna Resetting Failures and evaluation of Vulcan and Mantus (morganscloud.com)
Extract:
"The article resulted in more angry personal attacks on me than any other we have ever published, at least since we restricted comments to members".
OFF TOPIC DROSS AND NONSENSE WARNING
I can not understand why posters find is so difficult to accept that the anchor they have purchased might not be a good one, or that some old generation anchor like the CQR is in fact a real good anchor. It reminds me of a lecture by a military doctor who was talking about perception and how an adult learns how to understand an operational plan. What that chap said was that an unintelligent person that has formed an opinion about something will find it very difficult to change their mind when presented with new facts, and will often fail to read them and just stick to the opinion they already had, regardless of how the new information is presented. An intelligent person will read the documents and then do their own research to see if there is any other information available. They will of course have totally changed their minds about a subject.
Alas in this forum we have 2 regular posters who will never read or accept any new studies or test results, or consider another posters opinion as being of interest. Unfortunatly they often reply before I've even finished editing a post, which might be half an hour sometimes. Obviously such people tend to be rude or blunt in communication terms, although that is common with public forums that are not moderated for abusive or off topic posts.
TNLI
Active member
Did you see all of the clips, or just the first porn one ??
No one likes rusty anchors, and it's a pity I did not takes some pictures of the Spade I was given in exchange for a few beers, it was really bad with only a few small patches of yellow paint and a lot of serious rust. The chap who almost gave it to me thought it had not been galvanised correctly. He was using it in an area that is marked as mixed, but there is no warning from the manfacturer that their product is not suitable for such types of abrasive sea bed.
Hope you are not installing anchors on the bow that projects beyond the actual bow,, (Not allowed by some marinas or races), as they are bad news in a collision. Also hope you will have 2 anchors ready to deploy:
(4) Twin Anchors at the Bow | YBW Forum
Last edited:
geem
Well-known member
How much time do you actually spend at anchor in a given year?
boomerangben
Well-known member
I’ve watched a couple of different SV Panope videos showing 180 degree resets. Each time he seems to do it at a speed that I would imagine to be much faster than be reality (between 2 and 3.5knots). But does successfully get a set at lower speeds. Is he expecting too much and is the test realistic? It doesn’t seem to be to me, but I don’t have experience of anchoring in tidal channels
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
I used to have a genuine (and oversized for our boat) CQR. I swore by it as a wonderful anchor. However I admit that it regularly failed to set (even on large scopes in shallow water). Frequently the only way to get it to hold was to set it EXTREMELY slowly.
I changed to a Spade on the recommendation of no less than the then chief executive of the RNLI. (He was my boss once upon a time and we’re still in touch occasionally. )
I anchor in all sorts of bottoms. The Spade has never let me down.
I’ve read all the tests and watched lots of videos. The CQR gets slated time after time and that matched my experience.
I changed my mind. I realise I was once wrong.
I also hate to see lies and false promises peddled on these forums.
And what’s with this nonsense about full power sets. It might be ok with some sailing boats with auxiliary engines. Try it with a decent power boat or a commercial tug? You must be joking.
I changed to a Spade on the recommendation of no less than the then chief executive of the RNLI. (He was my boss once upon a time and we’re still in touch occasionally. )
I anchor in all sorts of bottoms. The Spade has never let me down.
I’ve read all the tests and watched lots of videos. The CQR gets slated time after time and that matched my experience.
I changed my mind. I realise I was once wrong.
I also hate to see lies and false promises peddled on these forums.
And what’s with this nonsense about full power sets. It might be ok with some sailing boats with auxiliary engines. Try it with a decent power boat or a commercial tug? You must be joking.
TNLI
Active member
Most
Steve is just being a realist, as most serious squalls result in the wind going from almost nothing to a very high figure, that means the boat will suddenly pull on its anchor and keep pulling. In the early days of testing he did things more slowly and only did 90 degree veers that are good for bending weak anchor shanks, but too easy in terms of testing the anchor itself. Those tests resulted in a number of experts saying that any anchor would pass the veer test, even a Rocna.
If you use a rope rode without an angle, (Or chum), and a Danforth or other lightish anchor and the anchor trips in a serious squall, a boat can often drift so fast once the anchor trips that it would not reach the bottom again. Steve does mention tide changes, but they are much slower.
Reply to Geem;
This year zero as I'm building my lifeboat, but around 5 or 6 years total in a bunch of different countries and boat types, 3 year circumnavigation, nearly 2 years Atlantic circle to Brazil and back, and nearly a year near shore fishing. Australias inside passage is a tricky one in anchoring terms, as is St Helena, the Cape Verdes and Canary Islands, as none of them have anchorages with real good holding. Most with a genuine CQR, Danforth or grapnel.
One thing I learnt was not to rely on one anchor, as you never really know what it is dug or jammed into. That's why it would be good if posters would say which anchors they own.
Steve is just being a realist, as most serious squalls result in the wind going from almost nothing to a very high figure, that means the boat will suddenly pull on its anchor and keep pulling. In the early days of testing he did things more slowly and only did 90 degree veers that are good for bending weak anchor shanks, but too easy in terms of testing the anchor itself. Those tests resulted in a number of experts saying that any anchor would pass the veer test, even a Rocna.
If you use a rope rode without an angle, (Or chum), and a Danforth or other lightish anchor and the anchor trips in a serious squall, a boat can often drift so fast once the anchor trips that it would not reach the bottom again. Steve does mention tide changes, but they are much slower.
Reply to Geem;
This year zero as I'm building my lifeboat, but around 5 or 6 years total in a bunch of different countries and boat types, 3 year circumnavigation, nearly 2 years Atlantic circle to Brazil and back, and nearly a year near shore fishing. Australias inside passage is a tricky one in anchoring terms, as is St Helena, the Cape Verdes and Canary Islands, as none of them have anchorages with real good holding. Most with a genuine CQR, Danforth or grapnel.
One thing I learnt was not to rely on one anchor, as you never really know what it is dug or jammed into. That's why it would be good if posters would say which anchors they own.
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
TNLI said, “In the early days of testing he did things more slowly and only did 90 degree veers that are good for bending weak anchor shanks,”
Can you link to any anchor tests where he bent any anchor shanks testing in the way you’re referring to.? No? I thought not. More lies/false information/innuendo.
Can you link to any anchor tests where he bent any anchor shanks testing in the way you’re referring to.? No? I thought not. More lies/false information/innuendo.
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
I have what I use. Several times.
TNLI
Active member
A BIT OFF TOPIC
I agree that a CQR does take more setting, but that is not unsafe in performance terms. Lack of structural strength or 180 degree veer failures are far more important, as youmight not be on your boat when the failures occur, or are daft enugh to be using just one anchor.
I must have stated that the Spade is top dog a dozen times, so why are you saying it's better yet again. The only issue with the Spade is the yellow paint and rust.
Steve of SV Penope did make a mistake early on of discovering that the reason why some boaters say the CQR is no good relates to the use of copies that do not balance in terms of tip weight like the genuine article. The plows need more scope than the varius modern copies of the Bugal, Bruce or Danforth.
If you look at the links I posted, the genuine CQR was better than the Delta in rocks, had a better holding power than all the NG anchors except the Spade, Ultra and the Bulwagga in sandy mud. It's only weakness is that it is no good in cobblestones, which unfortuntely are fairly common in some countries.
I hate to see the lies posted about the new generation anchors being better than the old anchors, as the Herreshoff is stronger than most, and outperforms most of them in rocks, heavy weed and in half of the cases, sand. In the end you will get what you pay for, and if you want the best, that means buying an Ultra, a bronze Herreshoff, and a Lewmar CQR. I think those 3 are the most expensive.
The last part of your post about aa tug is kind of daft, as all I said was that an anchor should be set by using enough powerto simulate the max force to be expected whilst at anchor. I use the term boaters, as very few forum members have a commercial vessel of some type.
ON TOPIC
Clean Sand Veer, 45lb Anchors. Test Video # 127 - YouTube
That video show the CQR doing rather better than most NG anchors. Good for comparison of the Ultra, Delta and CQR.
Last edited:
TNLI
Active member
You know very well that Steve of SV Penope did get several NG anchor bent during normal testing, but I did not note which of the serious number of You tube clips they were in. It was before he started to include a rating for mechanical strength, but he does not test anchors for strength. The most important tests as regards shank strength were done by Practical Sailor, and I've posted links to those articles several times, so just go back a read them again. Your remarks indicated you are still unhappy with the results, and my conclusions that is you look at all the tests of 180 degree veers and bent shank failures, that the only modern anchors that are safe to use as a main rather than a secondary anchor are the Spade and the Ultra. I used to think that the Excel was OK, but it failed some more recent 180 veer tests that were done at a more realistic rate of pull. So the Excel is in third place.
The majority of my opinions are based on test results or surveys from Steve of SV Penope anchor testing fame, Practical Sailor, Practical Boat Owner and even Yachting Monthly. It's not my fault that some boaters don't like those articles or You Tube clips, and think that the anchor they own is the best one available, and that any modern new generation anchor will be better than the old generation anchors, prticularly the top of the test tables, the genuine CQR, Herreshoff and Bulwagga, It's also not my fault that Steve has not published results of anchor performance based on deck area, (Size), and that the only test series done with that more useful comparison was done by Practical Sailor long enough ago to offend some posters, alas good test results don't change.
I would point out to anyone interested in which anchors are best for a serious cruise that larger so called storm anchors are only of interest if you are at risk of a tropical storm or worse whilst at anchor. Most serious loses whilst at anchor occur due to unexpected severe gust fronts from convective activity, local mountain valley winds, changes in the swell direction in the more open anchorages that result in breaking wave patterns, and weeds that cause an anchor to fail to reset, (Steve has noted the anchors that are sensitive to weeds, none of which are plows). I've lost count of the number of boats I've seen dragging a correctly set anchor that had enough scope that were caused by either a daft stainless shackle pin failure or the use of a type of anchor that does not reset correctly. Oddly enough the same posters who think that new generation copies of older generation anchors like the Bugal and very popoular Delta are better than the ones I list, think that Chinese or Indian parts are good in fatigue life or shear strength terms, when they are so bad that some chap who did a study sail there was no point even listing the figures as they were too low. Manufaturers only seem to list the tensile strength ones, which is very misleading if you are selecting a shackle or heaven forbid an anchor joiner, (Avoid stainless ones like the plague).
So the only safe way to anchor apart from using a secondary anchor as insurance, is to have a range of different anchors available to match the type of seabed on the charts or in the guides, both are important as is listening or asking for more details on the Hf or even VHF prior to anchoring. Coral heads can grow within a year and a wreck can occur just before you arrive. From that point of view, I always enter a dubious anchorage at low tide to see what is there in the way of wecks or coral heads or shelf edges, along with more common sand and mud banks not marked on a chart as they are past the edge of a chart, (River or remote are issue).
In the end the best anchors are the general purpoe ones that will work in any type of sea bed, and there are very few of them, although I'm not including cobblestones, as the only anchor that is really good is a fixed grapnel, in terms of weight vs performance, or a fishermans, (Including anchors derived from that type of design like the Herreshoff).
So in conclusion the best genral purpose tough anchors:
New generation CQR and ULTRA, (If you don't mind rust the Spade is also good).
Old generation: Genuine steel CQR, (Make sure the hinge is not worn and rusty), and the bronze Herreshoff as a secondary main.
It' a real good idea to carry a spare, so a rusty Spade or even a steel Danforth, and one odd thing about the best general purpose anchors is that they are the most expensive, apart from the Lewmar CQR, So in economic terms I suppose it's top dog. If you can't afford the best and just wanto buy a cheap anchor that is regardede as general purpose and very difficult to bend or break, then the Lewmar Delta. Nothing wrong with good used anchors are both the genuine CQR and Delta can be found listed in Fleabay and more local used parts web sites, like Gumtree.
If you see a 3 part bronze Herreshoff, please PM me. It might be listed as a Yachtsman anchor, and if you reply please list the 2 anchors you use.
TNLI
Active member
Now this one from Steve has me convinced that the Spade and other convex fluke anchors, invcluding the Rocna et al have a mud fouling issue in a straight line pull. Even the Ultra had a mud foul. So in conclusion the CQR won, BUT Steve is still listing results in weight terms rather than deck area, (Size), which is not fair to the heavier anchors like the CQR or Ultra. I just wish he would do a second table. I had to laugh when he decided the 50lb CQR did not need a second pull, as the results were too good. The same is true of the Practical Sailor, (Might have been PBO), test of shanks for strength, as then did not bother testing the CQR or Bruce, cos they said there was no point testing tough anchors. Anyway, this is not such good news for the Ultra and has put me off trying to obtain one to some extent. Alas it's also bad news for the Spade as it mud fouled.
45lb Anchor. Sandy Mud Winch Testing. Video # 130 - YouTube
I always thought that weeds were more important than mud fouling, but it does appear that mud fouling in a straight pull is just as important, if not more so, as most of the best anchorages have mud. I suppose a combination of mud with weeds would be the most problematic for the scoopers like the ultimate new generation failure, with or without the roll bar, the dreaded ULTRA DRAG queen. Steve should award a prize for the worst anchor in each clip !!
Slightly off topic:
When I set a secondary anchor for insurance, I always used to fit a peg alarm to one of the plastic tie wraps, or some tape around the rode. That system consists of a clothes peg and 2 screws or Copper nails, so that they close when the secondary rode that I keep in a bag or milk crate gets pulled out. Loud intermittent buzzer wired to a 12V supply or battery pack. I use the same alarm for fish hook ups, at anchor or en route for the bungee fishing line. Very reliable and cheap system. Modern GPS based anchor alarms are good, but they use more power and are a tad more expensive.
PS: Off to look in Fleabay and Gumtree for another good used genuine CQR that is a tad heavier than my present 15lb one.
45lb Anchor. Sandy Mud Winch Testing. Video # 130 - YouTube
I always thought that weeds were more important than mud fouling, but it does appear that mud fouling in a straight pull is just as important, if not more so, as most of the best anchorages have mud. I suppose a combination of mud with weeds would be the most problematic for the scoopers like the ultimate new generation failure, with or without the roll bar, the dreaded ULTRA DRAG queen. Steve should award a prize for the worst anchor in each clip !!
Slightly off topic:
When I set a secondary anchor for insurance, I always used to fit a peg alarm to one of the plastic tie wraps, or some tape around the rode. That system consists of a clothes peg and 2 screws or Copper nails, so that they close when the secondary rode that I keep in a bag or milk crate gets pulled out. Loud intermittent buzzer wired to a 12V supply or battery pack. I use the same alarm for fish hook ups, at anchor or en route for the bungee fishing line. Very reliable and cheap system. Modern GPS based anchor alarms are good, but they use more power and are a tad more expensive.
PS: Off to look in Fleabay and Gumtree for another good used genuine CQR that is a tad heavier than my present 15lb one.
Last edited:
Boathook
Well-known member
Has he even got a boat ?
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
More nonsense mixed up with half truths.
You keep suggesting a ‘genuine CQR is one of the best anchors. This is despite it showing extremely poorly in some of the very tests you quote. You admit you have to be careful when setting it, yet claim it’s superior to several other NG anchors that set instantly. You say it’s stronger yet you’ve been shown pictures of genuine steel forged ones that are bent.
You have failed to understand anything I’ve said about your confirmation bias and your selective use of test videos.
You pretend to know something about metallurgy but your claims are dismissed by professionals as nonsense. But you ignore those comments and plough on.
You abuse the forum by continually advertising for an anchor which might be helpful very occasionally but for some bizarre reason you think is going to save you.
The best thing anyone could do who wants to know about anchors and anchoring is to ignore all your nonsense and poor conclusions and ill informed proclamations and go and do their own research.
“I always arrive at an anchorage at LW” is the comment of an armchair sailor. In real life this just doesn’t happen. For example, yesterday I sailed from Tyrell Bay in Carriacou via the passage between Palm Island and Union Island and then Snake Channel through the Tobago Cays to Charles Bay in Canouan. This is a passage you would be mad to attempt at night IMHO. Very few lights and most aren’t there (or aren’t working anyway). You start during the day and arrive during daylight. In other words we arrive when we arrive and I can’t choose the state of the tide. Your statement that you always arrive at Low Water is that of someone who doesn’t really go sailing. I’m beginning to wonder about the truth of your claimed world girdling trips. Besides which, where do you get your tidal data for all these places from. What’s the range of tide that allows you to see all these hazards at LW? Or do you think that all the world has tides like the UK? “I always arrive at LW” is the comment of someone who doesn’t really go sailing.
Your loud buzzer story is the stuff of arm chair sailing. It sounds plausible from the comfort of your home but I’m not sure I believe you. Too many choices in your description. If you’d done it for real then you’d describe what you’d actually did. Besides which it contradicts your description of using two anchors.
Here’s reality: I might use two anchors if there’s a serious storm coming. Otherwise like everyone else, I use one anchor. I’m anchored as I write this to one anchor that sticks like glue to the seabed. Two days ago I used it in rock and weed. It held very well.
Please stop abusing the forum with your nonsensical ideas.
You keep suggesting a ‘genuine CQR is one of the best anchors. This is despite it showing extremely poorly in some of the very tests you quote. You admit you have to be careful when setting it, yet claim it’s superior to several other NG anchors that set instantly. You say it’s stronger yet you’ve been shown pictures of genuine steel forged ones that are bent.
You have failed to understand anything I’ve said about your confirmation bias and your selective use of test videos.
You pretend to know something about metallurgy but your claims are dismissed by professionals as nonsense. But you ignore those comments and plough on.
You abuse the forum by continually advertising for an anchor which might be helpful very occasionally but for some bizarre reason you think is going to save you.
The best thing anyone could do who wants to know about anchors and anchoring is to ignore all your nonsense and poor conclusions and ill informed proclamations and go and do their own research.
“I always arrive at an anchorage at LW” is the comment of an armchair sailor. In real life this just doesn’t happen. For example, yesterday I sailed from Tyrell Bay in Carriacou via the passage between Palm Island and Union Island and then Snake Channel through the Tobago Cays to Charles Bay in Canouan. This is a passage you would be mad to attempt at night IMHO. Very few lights and most aren’t there (or aren’t working anyway). You start during the day and arrive during daylight. In other words we arrive when we arrive and I can’t choose the state of the tide. Your statement that you always arrive at Low Water is that of someone who doesn’t really go sailing. I’m beginning to wonder about the truth of your claimed world girdling trips. Besides which, where do you get your tidal data for all these places from. What’s the range of tide that allows you to see all these hazards at LW? Or do you think that all the world has tides like the UK? “I always arrive at LW” is the comment of someone who doesn’t really go sailing.
Your loud buzzer story is the stuff of arm chair sailing. It sounds plausible from the comfort of your home but I’m not sure I believe you. Too many choices in your description. If you’d done it for real then you’d describe what you’d actually did. Besides which it contradicts your description of using two anchors.
Here’s reality: I might use two anchors if there’s a serious storm coming. Otherwise like everyone else, I use one anchor. I’m anchored as I write this to one anchor that sticks like glue to the seabed. Two days ago I used it in rock and weed. It held very well.
Please stop abusing the forum with your nonsensical ideas.
Last edited:
TNLI
Active member
The only tests that show bad results for a CQR are for a copy, Steve did point out that he had made an error later in his test series and was good enough to retest a genuine CQR vs Delta, which the genuine CQR won in ansolute holding power terms, It also was about the best in tough anchor and the mud fouling tests I just posted. None of the other tests that were filmed rather than forged show an issue other than the need to spend more time setting a plow. I suppose you could say that the CQR is not the best anchor for a newbie boater, as they do forget to set it. They are also bad news in cobblestones as I've previously pointed out, although nearly all of the NG and OG anchors are. It's the weed, mud fouling, (including the Sapade that failed that test), 180 suden veer and shank bend issue that make the CQR a real star, that is still no 1 in the USA for the difficult Pacific NW coast.
The only picture of a bent and broken CQR is for a very early cast Iron one that I have said before are no good. Most of them have badly worn hinges and are rusty. The issue with recycled cast Iron is that it can be broken if hit hard enough, and some cheap types might be rust resistant if the surface is polished up prior to galavanising, which is good on all genuine CQR's. The bad first version can be easily identified from the use of the 1/2 lb at the end of the weight figure on the shank. Still Ok as a secondary but not sure what it takes to bend a cast Iron shank. It might have been crushed under a keel, which can bend any anchor.
You need to time any interesting passage to arrive in daylight near to low water, obviously that is not always possible, and some anchrages are well marked and don't contain obstructions. The Pacific and Australian ones are the most unmarked and problematic. The Escape river entrance is a classic as there are no marks, so all the book says is to try the middle of the channel and the area has long grass over sand, if you tart rubbing the grass the boat will slow down, so do a 180 and try again. It took me 3 goes before I stopped rubbing the thick grass. I prefer to run aground at lowish water for obvious reasons. Jumping over the side or playing about setting a kedge out is not a good option with big salties around. Just wait for the tide. I have had to wait nearly a week to time some of the more difficult anchorages and passages, although that is often due to lack of lights or even markers.
You don't have to belive me about the easy to make fishing or anchor watch buzzer, although I sometimes used a short line to a weight on the bottom when I only used one anchor, to alert me I had swung around for some reason. I will post a picture of the simple system when I make another one. Very reliable multi purpose alarm.
Most folks that drag ashore from anchor only use one anchor, one even said it was the last time she would allow her husband not to bother with a second anchor. Not all strong winds are forecast correctly. If you don't dive on an anchor, no matter how well it was set, all it takes is a tin can on a pint or a brick to fool even a high timer or anchor expert into thinking they are safely anchored. I don't go diving unless it's a dire emergency, so I nearly always deploy a second anchor. Lazy boaters often learn about anchoring the hard way.
PS: I will probably be banned soon, as old generation anchors are bad for Rocna and Spade sales figures, as is a person who suggests buying used anchors.
Link to a very old sailing page that does not include fishing or an Atlantic circle in Dana, the first Pacific Seacaft 24, a great little boat supplied for offshore testing many moons ago. It has a 20lb genuine steel CQR and a 10lb steel Danforth mounted at the stern.
www.hybridpilotservices.com/sailing
geem
Well-known member
I think I understand now. The only sea miles you have done is on a cruise ship. The reason why you don't think there is seagrass in the Caribbean is because the cruise ship was at the dock. You totally believe a CQR is a great anchor because you have never owned one. You have never experienced the pleasure of an easily setting NG anchor so have nothing to compare with.
There are people out there actually doing this anchoring stuff telling you that you are wrong but you sit in your armchair and tell us all how to do it. Do us a favour and take up knitting. Join a knitting forum and tell them they are all doing it wrong. Give us all a rest. The only reason some of us are replying to your totally inaccurate and misleading posts is so that there is a response telling anybody new to sailing who might inadvertently stumble on your posts on this forum, not to believe a word of it. You are wrong, misinformed and peddling made up nonsense
vyv_cox
Well-known member
What they actually said was "Why no CQR? Why no Bruce? Why no Delta? Because of the time involved-not to mention the inherent variables of this test-we limited the test to designs that we suspected would have a higher rate of shank failure. In simple terms, we wanted deep-setting anchors with thin shanks. " This is perfectly normal in every type of testing. Due to all sorts of time and money restraints you test the ones most likely to fail with a known strong one as a control.
This is the link - Anchor Tests: Bending More Shanks - Practical Sailor
As so often, you have a selective memory when it comes to the results. The aluminium and mild steel shanks bent, of course they did. Any sensible person will accept that might happen. But anchor No.3, a 35.2-pound SARCA Excel, a convex plough design with mild steel fluke and a high-tensile steel (ASTM 514) shank did not bend. The tensile strength of ASTM 514 in the quenched and tempered condition is around 800 - 890 MPa
They also said "The shanks of all anchors, except the high-tensile SARCA Excel, were bent to varying degrees. Based on the results, the galvanized SARCA Excel, with its Bisalloy 80 shank, did very well, and we expect similar anchors that use the same shank material, such as the Manson Supreme, to do just as well. "
And "The Spade shank was bent and twisted, and the shank slot in the fluke showed some minor distortion. "
So the reality, based upon the link you are so fond of posting, is that the New Generation anchors with high strength steel shanks do not bend, whereas in at least this test the Spade did.
Rappey
Well-known member
One guy who seems to dislike rocna and manages to get the rocna performing badly but there are many other vidoes showing rocna performing best ?
How can you claim any anchor is best based on biased opinions when youve not tested any of them ?
- Status
