Anchor's Up again

[timflan]

Hank, I'm VERY interested in hearing about it. Just so we all have the same picture in front of us...



What kind of roller is that?
Does it self-launch off that roller?
Self-retrieve? Or does it come onto the roller upside-down sometimes?
Do you ever get comments on it at the dock?
I assume you purchased from Suncoast Marine. How were they to deal with?

Thanks!

[Sea Skipper]

Anchor roller is a URM-7 made by Windline. I bought it directly from Windline; I don't believe that it is generally available. It fits the Spade 80 & 100 series anchors perfectly and I think Deltas and others as well. I modified it for the Rocna. I think the Rocna would fit the standard BRM3 roller normally installed on the C-Dorys, but I would verify that the anchor stock won't hit the end of the winch when stowed. The anchor self-launches as long as the roller turns easily on it's shaft and will self right about half the time when retrieving. I normally weigh anchor standing on the bow with a remote windlass control in one hand and boat hook for muck & seaweed removal in the other hand. Mark Pocock, president of Suncoast Marine, has been a real pleasure to work with. The anchor is well made, nice welding and made from high tensile steel. I carry a Fortress FX16 anchor for backup and a 3rd 9# folding grapnel anchor which I use in a Hammerlock moor to dampen the CD-25's tendencies to oscillate in the wind (sailing back and forth). My personal anchor choice for the CD25 would be in order: Rocna 10 (17#), Spade aluminum A80 (15#), Delta (22#) - The steel Spade S80 (38#) is a superb anchor but too heavy for the bow of the CD25. (weights are as measured)

Regarding comments on it at the dock -- I always cover the anchor in a black bag before docking to avoid the mob scene!

[thataway]

I was at our local West Marine superstore (expanded recently--almost as big as Wally world). Lo and behold, they had several Manson Supremes on the shelf. The 15lb (rated for 18 to 25 foot boats) was $175 retail and the 25lb (Rated for 25 to 35 foot boats) was $245. I suspect that prices will go up when the new catalogue is out.

The anchors were interesting--and if I was in the market for one, I probably would buy on--and I may still. The bottom of the fluke is concave. The shank has a long slot, so you can attatch the rode in a fashion that it can pull the anchor out, if it fouls, but this weakens the shank, plus would allow the anchor to trip, if the strain on the rode were to suddenly reverse. There is a single conventional eye which I suspect most people would use most of the time.

The only concern I have is that these anchors depend on a butt weld between the shank and fluke. I believe that the spade has the shank thru the fluke and then secured with a bolt. The Delta also has the similar weld. One of the beauties of a CQR or Bruce is that they are forged and do not depend on welds. The Claw is cast (and weaker than a forged anchor). I don't think that the weld is a problem in boats our size.

The other question I have, is does the roll bar (which is a pipe, not a solid rod) keep the anchor from burying as deep as it can? The depth that an anchor can bury is often essential for the best holding power. Many times the upper layer of the bottom is soft material, and there is a better holding substrait deeper, if the anchor can penetrate.

None of these anchors will be at an advantage in rocks either where they can be wedges (except the possibility of pulling the opposite direction with the Manson)--or in the ball bearing type of small stones, which no anchor holds well in.

Is the Manson Supreme better than the Delta or Bruce?--I don't know--but it looks like it might set faster. The comperable Delta, Fortress or Danforth is a bit cheaper and the Claw is much cheaper. Manson makes a forged version of the Bruce which is much more expensive (about 7 times! than the cast Claw).

[Sea Wolf]

I thought it would be useful to post a picture or two of the Manson Supreme Anchor to help folks visualize it:



Manson Supreme Anchor

[hardee]

Thanks Dr. Bob, I am kind of liking the Manson Supreme. Saw a very good demo on anchors today at SBS, and it was really evident that each one has it's moments.

Harvey
SleepyC

[thataway]

Harvey,
I do think that the Manson Supreme is a good anchor. I don't know what type of demonistration you saw. The ones in dry sand are probably not worth much. Videos can be biased. For example the SuperMax (another excellent anchor) had some videos done by "navy experts"--so I got the video and since the "experts" were susposed to be at Pensacola Naval Air Station, I tried to find them--The were long gone. Looking critically at the video, the bottoms were different for different anchors. The best tests are those done by independant testers (simlar to those by Boat US, West Marine and US sailing). There there are strain guages, high pull real tug boats, an attempt to equalize the bottom types. (Although these are mostly in one relitatively ideal bottom type).

If I get a Manson Supreme, I'll do some independant testing (realizing its limits) by measuring the RPM in my 18 footer with a 115 HP to see at what point the anchor drags--as well as measing the distance from touching the bottom to fully set (with constant scope). I will test a Manson, Delta, Fortress (same size as comperable Danforth) Danforth look alike and a SS Northill folding sea plane anchor.

[hardee]

Just wondering if anyone saw anything really interesting along the anchor lines at the boat show? Hint: Ultra Anchor. Just checking for opinions.
Harvey
SleepyC

[Sea Wolf]

Harvey- You mean this Ultra Anchor?



P.S.: THOSE ANCHOR TEST VIDEOS LOOK "RIGGED" AND IN A SANDBOX. NOTE HOW THEY CAREFULLY POSITION THE ANCHORS (GOOD AND BAD), THEN PULL THE CHAIN AT DIFFERENT ANGLES! GIMMIE A BREAK!

Joe.

[timflan]

I just heard about this anchor yesterday. Somehow I missed them at the boat show. I'll check them out today.

Whoah..hold on. $892 for the little one?!? I thought the Rocna was expensive!

[hardee]

Joe, Thanks for finding that picture. And yes, that is the one. they had quit an impressive display. With model anchors of every kind, scaled by weight and size, and both sand and rocky substraite to play in.

Tim, Yeah Whoa! But it is stainless, and it doesn't have a roll bar so it digs deep, and it rolls right side up because of the weighted tip and tubal shank. The Non-chain-foul-bar is a nice trick.

I liked them, but Whoa $$$ and thought the material weights and thickness looked like it would do the job, the weld (shank to flat base) was not the most perfect weld I have seen. Not sure if I would go with the smallets one for the 22 though. I think I like oversize by one, which is $$$$$$$ compared to almost any no stainless one.

Harvey
SleepyC

[timflan]

I loved playing with the anchor models in the tubs of sand and gravel. It was easy to see why my Lewmar Claw not-really-a-Bruce fails to dig in when pulled with a short scope. That thing needs almost horizontal pull to start digging.

But then, I love models. And I know from my experience with model trains that FORCES DON'T SCALE in predictable ways. I also know that just because a model is the appropriate size and shape, visually, it may not be the appropriate MASS for the scale.

If fluke area is an important factor in an anchor's performance, for instance, then note that fluke area is a square measure, so it scales as the square of the linear scale. A 1/24 scale model of an anchor has 1/24^2 or 1/576th the surface area of the real one.

But if weight is an important factor in an anchor's performance, then note that weight, or mass, corresponds to volume, so it scales as the cube of the linear scale. A 1/24 scale model has 1/24^3, or 1/13,824th the mass of the real one.

And what about the media? Is the sand "super-fine" 1/24-scale sand, to correspond to "normal" 1/1-scale sand? The gravel was unconvincing, like watching old disaster movies where ship models are storm-tossed in tanks...the waves don't move or splash like full-scale waves do. The gravel seemed much too light, probably a result of the mass scaling issue discussed above.

In other words, even if the models are PERFECTLY SCALED reproductions, they can't be tested against one-another with any degree of confidence in the results.

So while the models were fun to play with, and they are great visual aids for Randy's excellent Ultra Anchor pitch, I declined when they offered to hand me a fish scale so I could measure the force required to drag each anchor. Any data generated this way has little or nothing to do with the real world, so I wasn't really interested in knowing those numbers.

All that said, the Ultra might be a great anchor. I don't know, and when you Google it up, you find VERY little anecdotal evidence from places like SSCA.org, and no anchor test results. Be sure to search for both "Quickline anchor" and "Ultra anchor" to catch all the discussion. What little there is. Here's the only anecdotal report I could find.

I think it may be too new to have gained the momentum a new anchor needs. Things like reports from cruisers, and sufficient popularity to be included in the independent anchor tests.

I probably sound like an anti-Ultra curmudgeon, but that's not true, actually. I'm almost 100% set on one of the spade-derived anchors for my boat. These include the Spade, Rocna, Manson Supreme, or Ultra. I'm just trying to help my colleagues develop a bit of skepticism about tests of model anchors in sand and gravel.

[Sea Wolf]

Tim-

Excellent post into an area understood by few!

You get an A+ in your physics lesson for the day!

Even testing full scale anchors must be one of he most difficult things to do accurately in the marine sciences!

Cheers!

Joe.

[thataway]

Tim,
A comment on the Ultra in the Turkish area you linked to (thank you). We spent a summer cruising these waters and there are some very difficult anchoring conditions: from ball bearing rocks to very heavy root grass, where I was diving with an axe and putting the point of the CQR into the bottom after having chopped the 2" thick roots thru. We finally had a hand forged anchor built in Bodrum--the pattern was a "fisherman" with very long pointed and sharp spikes and broad tapered sharpened flukes. This was not galvanized or painted so it could be kept sharp with a file. It rusted very little. The construction was the same as it would have been 3000 years ago; all on a hand forge, no welding, but rather white hot metal beat and melted to build the anchor--no cutting with a saw, or drilling, but cutting with a cold chisel or pounding a cold piece of steel thru a flattened white hot bar. Probably this same anchor was made since Phonecian times. But it worked and I didn't have to dive with the axe.

The point is that there are anchor patterns which will work in some very specific bottoms, but there is no universal anchor.

[hardee]

Dr. Bob wrote: "We finally had a hand forged anchor built... "

I think I might like that idea and it may be less expensive. However I do like the idea of having something that has been tried and tested, by more than just the manufacture.

Thanks for the input and glad to hear of the anecdotal data as well.

Harvey
SleepyC

[Sarge]

Just the other day, I was in my home library (ahem ) looking for reading material when I came across the West Marine 2007 catalog. On page 221 they have an article on Heavyweight Anchor Testing.

Amongst many anchors tested were the Rocna 15, Manson Supreme 35, and the Fortress FX-37.

comments:

Rocna 15 - Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500 lbs and engaged immediately.

Manson Supreme 35 - In six pulls never held less than 2,300 lbs and held over 5,000 lbs three times. Seemed to engage the bottom immediately.

Fortress FX-37 - Generally held as much tension as we could throw at it. Was slightly damaged when pulled over 5,000 lbs. Excellent performance.

They explain the testing process in the article, but they believe their tests were done on 'extremely compacted sand,' which caused some of the anchors to simply skid on the bottom.

Take it for what it's worth.