Who wants a new anchor for Christmas?

[Seven Spades]

Having read the anchor test in this months YM. I wonder if I have been lucky, I have one of the old trusted anchors so derided in the article but have never had a problem, but I have never anchored in anything challenging either.

Personally I think the tests were spoilt as they did not test the anchors on rocky/gravel or weedy bottoms. I suspect that most anchors tested (except one) will in fact do the job in sand in most "normal" conditions, but I suspect that there would have been a dramatically different result on other surfaces.

Still I thought it was one of the best articles this year.

 

[craigsmith]

Another bizarre test with no repeat trials and doubtful results. What is with the veering angle of pull and measuring the relative "holding power" of each, creating a lottery of single trial luck, instead of noting the re-set behavior and grading by distance taken to re-orient securely?

Meanwhile the Kobra Delta knock-off is measured as performing nearly twice as well as the genuine Delta - a really unrealistic result - and similarly the rather primitive Buegel out-performs by no small margin Manson's 25% heavier far more sophisticated, albeit heavily compromised, copy of the Rocna. These results are aberrations and really needed more trials to get sensible data from.

No focus appears to have been given to ensuring the seabed was consistent; with single trials conducted from a boat, it requires use of buoys or similar to define "lanes" for pulls - in the absence of this, the test pulls of one anchor to the next, let alone between the first and the last... Indeed, in the conclusion, if one reads between the lines, they practically admit that the bottom was not consistent! They concede an "inherent weakness" to their test, and proclaim that it would be "presumptuous to declare that one anchor is the best" - never mind that on the same page they have ranked each anchor very clearly.

Then they go on to exclaim, in the conclusion, at how amazing it seems to them that a broken anchor will not work as well as one undamaged. Go figure.

Unfortunately this article is another example of magazine review hampered by inadequate resources, unwillingness to invest the required time, lack of knowledge amongst the testers, and poor control over environmental factors.

That said, the general reinforcement of the superiority of the new generation designs is reservedly welcomed...

If anyone wants a visual demonstration of that message, involving SevenSpades' "old trusted anchor", try here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGAckf69pE

 

[Seven Spades]

Very good it demonstrates exactly my worries about the CQR however this test is even more floored than the YM tests.

Testing of the water means that the displacement effect of the water is missing, I am not sure ow important that is. Also how often will an anchor land gently on its side. I suspect that that would be a very rare occurrence. Whilst the CQR is 35lb the Ronca looks far bigger and heavier but we are not told its weight.

What the video does demonstrate is that the chances of the Rocna not setting appear to be far less than the CQR.

 

[craigsmith]

It is a 15 kg, the same weight. The absence of water is unimportant so long as the sand is wet. In fact the Rocna is heavily biased against in that test because he pulled it way faster than the CQR. What about the position?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsDRQHbpv-M

Read the guy's thread here:
http://forums.sbo.sailboatowners.com/showthread.php?t=112776

Of course, the CQR faithful will always find excuses

 

[BelleSerene]

I have sympathy with Craig's frustration. What he appears too noble to point out (he's affiliated to Rocna) is that the test bizarrely omits to include the Rocna anchor, whilst including a few far less common brands.

Why this glaring omission? My take on it was that the article is borrowed from a French sister publication, and that as usual the protectionist French champion their own. Of course the (French-owned, Moroccan-built) Spade was included. In fact, two of its models were!

It is a shame that a more than shoddy approach to testing technical equipment rendered this comparison of anchor types as good as (worse than?) useless, leading the reader to draw conclusions that simply can't be justified. Hats off to Craig Smith for not expressing more resentment about this. (Who knows; perhaps he has done to the YM editor?!)

 

[doug748]

I have been reading about new miracle anchors for forty years. Always amazing results, always new ones along in a few years.
I suspect it has more to do with retailing than anything else. Stick with what you have or just buy a bigger one.

 

[jimi]

I have been reading about new miracle anchors for forty years. Always amazing results, always new ones along in a few years.
I suspect it has more to do with retailing than anything else. Stick with what you have or just buy a bigger one.

.. or add more chain

 

[Gwylan]

Agree - all a bit less than scientific. Buy bigger, let out more chain seems to be the best route. Until the perfect anchor comes out next year, about the same time the pub will be giving free beer.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Try and design a way of testing a variety of anchors in a manner which which would compare each anchor fairly. I think, without mega-resources, it's next to impossible.

You'd need an entirely uniform sea bed (you can't reuse the same bit because it will have been disturbed by the previous testee). Actually, you'd need a selection of them, mud, soft sand, hard sand, shingle, sand with rocks, weed cover, etc.

You'd need exact positioning, with the exact same length of chain, to ensure a standard catenary, and that would also imply a constant sea level, so non-tidal.

You need sea conditions to remain the same throughout the several days the test might take.

You'd need a calibrated test rig, so that the pull would be comparable between tests.

You'd need to ensure the testing vessel didn't move forwards or sideways during the test.

And probably you'd need to control other variables.

Conclusion: we'll never see a fair comparison test.

 

[Chris_Robb]

I have been reading about new miracle anchors for forty years. Always amazing results, always new ones along in a few years.
I suspect it has more to do with retailing than anything else. Stick with what you have or just buy a bigger one.

I think that if you just tried one, rather than sticking your head in the sand, you would NEVER go back to your trusted faithfull beast! Until you do I suggest that your comments here are valueless.

 

[Chris_Robb]

Might work - especially with sticking out ears

No - Its the teeth what do it - Ester would have made a wonderful job if she had not had the opp.

 

[Seven Spades]

I had a look at the video in the Rocna web site it is really impressive I am not sure why Craig did not post that link instead. It is very convincing. All I need is a spare £500.00

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

I tried a bigger plough with heavier chain to improve my boats anchoring.
It didn't seem to make a bit of difference, more down to luck in varying conditions rather than anything else.
I bought a lighter Rocna than the ploughs... having read through many reports, seen the videos and talked to others with a great deal of experience in having anchored most of the time living aboard.
My Rocna seems to set first time, every time so far.
I have no affiliations with any anchor manufacturer

 

[RobBrown]

My experience

Posting in an anchor thread is always fraught with risk & tension- a bit like anchoring itself really, at least for me!

I can only speak as I find , but after sailing on big boats for 5 years with a 25lb CQR and constantly having trouble in getting it to set & dragging ( it is clealry vbery scope dependent) I purchased a 13 KG galvanised Bugel (£85) from a German chandlery at the beginning of the season and have not regretted it. Never anything but set first time and within seconds, no dragging, no fuss.

My tuppence worth.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

My 2 Choices of Anchor So Far

I have a 60 lb CQR and it is tuff to set. The old bower CQR was 40 lb (now acts as a kedge!). They came with the boat. Having experience of exactly the same boat with the 40 lb CQR, the 60 lb doesn't offer better setting capabilities. It is quite problematic to set in kelp as well.

The best anchor I have used was the Bruce. On one occasion couldn't get it out, wound the bows down with a sheet winch and still it wouldn't budge. A bit later the bows popped up. Pulled up the anchor and there was a massive ball of clay stuck on it. The Bruce was developed for exactly this type of bottom. It also set well in different sea bed types.

Next best was the Danforth. Used to haul a Rival 41 stern first off a lee shore (boat still floating) with a sheet winch again. I was actually quite surprised at how fast it dug in and held. It was mostly rope and had a very long scope for depth.

I would like to change the anchor as at 60 lbs its a big lump.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I have been reading about new miracle anchors for forty years. Always amazing results, always new ones along in a few years.
I suspect it has more to do with retailing than anything else. Stick with what you have or just buy a bigger one.

Well said.

IMHO that the best anchor is one that's in a sea bed with excellent holding. If the holding's poor the best anchor is one with plenty of chain.

Interesting that almost all ships go with one anchor type and don't switch as fads come and go.

I seem to recall a YM anchor test where the danforth was deemed best ("better" than the Rocna). So what's changed a year or two later???

FWIW I've spent at least one night on every traditional anchor I can think of (including Fisherman) and I didn't notice any of them being especially difficult to set or use so I can't see what the fuss is about.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I think that if you just tried one, rather than sticking your head in the sand, you would NEVER go back to your trusted faithfull beast!

But what problems did you have before you switched?

The anchorages I frequent aren't littered with wrecks of boats that dragged in the night so other people seem to manage ok.

Commercial ships don't use high tech anchors, they manage.

Do users of modern anchors have a problem with other boats dragging down onto them during the night? I doubt it!

 

[Chris_Robb]

But what problems did you have before you switched?

The anchorages I frequent aren't littered with wrecks of boats that dragged in the night so other people seem to manage ok.

Commercial ships don't use high tech anchors, they manage.

Do users of modern anchors have a problem with other boats dragging down onto them during the night? I doubt it!

Setting dear boy , setting

Once in - all fine -

Toot Toot

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Setting dear boy , setting

Maybe I'm some kind of anchor setting god but I've not noticed the trad anchors being tricky to set.

Mind you 90pc of the time I make f**k all effort to set anchors. Just chuck it over and let nature do its work - just as it would if it tripped out at 3am.

 

[Ariadne]

I think modern anchors make good use of the technology available. The CQR is old technology and was designed for a specific purpose. Saying that I have 40lb CQR as a second bow anchor, and when I needed it in a hurry it worked.

My main anchor is a 21Kg Delta which until this year had never let me down, but I'm finding it drags in very soft mud/sand no matter how much chain I use. I use a Fortess FX11 + 8m 10mm chain as a kedge, but I find it holds us (15 tons) very well in soft mud/sand. Never dragged yet even in 35kts on the beam.

Horses for courses then.