Anchor's Up again

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.
 
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 :moon
 
Harvey- You mean this Ultra Anchor?

ULTRA2DD.jpg


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. :teeth :thup
 
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!
 
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 :moon
 
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.
 
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. :thup :teeth
 
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.
 
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
:moon
 
Just the other day, I was in my home library (ahem :wink ) 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.
 
Thanks Sarge, The Admirable says I cannot afford to read that book :cry but I did anyway. Did not remember that test was listed in there.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon
 
The Ronca is on the first page of the ancoring section as well as the Manson supreme. The Ronca 22 lb is $407, the Manson Supreme 25lb galvanized is $289, in Stainless it is $1159 (not a typo)!

The 22# Delta is $172 and the 25lb CQR is $559. Contrast that with the 22# West Marine Traditional at $90 and the 25# West Marine Performance at $ 210 (same as the old Danforth HT--and Danforth are no longer listed in West Marine catalogue). Compared with the Fortress FX 37 (21 lbs and what was used in the West Tests that Sarge mentioned) @ $499--or the Fortress FX 11 (7 lbs) which is the size for our C Dories at $169, or the similar Guardian G11 (6lbs) at $95.

So the prices range from $90 to $1160 for close to the same holding power! I use the Delta 14 and 22, the FX 37 "storm anchor"--Guardian FX 11 and Danforth 12lb. I have ordered the Manson 25, and I will test all of these anchors this weekend, assuming good weather.

I find it interesting that the West Marine Danfoth copy didn't perform anywhere nearly as well as the Fortress in the "compacted sand"--I had used Danforth anchors for many years and never had a failure in sand.

Stay tuned for my "tests"--
 
thataway":6ej03z7w said:
(Some clipped)

I find it interesting that the West Marine Danfoth copy didn't perform anywhere nearly as well as the Fortress in the "compacted sand"--I had used Danforth anchors for many years and never had a failure in sand.

Stay tuned for my "tests"--
Click to expand...

Bob-

Maybe the difference was the sharpness of the Fortress flukes and shank in the compacted sand?

Can't wait for your tests!

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
I'm also VERY interested in your anchor tests. If you're willing, we could work them up into a post or a series of posts on Navagear.
 
Tim,
My tests will probably be fairly crude, since I don't have a strain guage (unless I make one with a spring scale and a lever arm)--we wll see how much load it takes. You are welcome to use the tests as you see fit, along with the explaination of the difficulty of doing proper anchor tests.


Joe, It might be that the "sharpness" is a factor--and that is one of the reasons I like the HT Danorth and Performance versions of the West Marine--they are made of high tensile steel and have sharper edges than the sheet metal anchors do. I suspect it would depend on how "compacted" the sand is. Our sand around here is very soft--and of a fine granular nature (often called "powder sugar" sand).

I have a couple of WW II anchors I will also test--one is a 40 lb Danforth, Riveted model, and the other is Stainless Steel Sea Plane anchor--North hill style. The FX 37 and the 40 lb Danforth are about the same fluke area--but the FX Fortress does have sharper flukes edges.
 
Bob-

I wish I lived close enough to you to help you with the anchor tests!

Much more fun that simply cruising or fishing! (For an investigative personality, at least!)

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
Dr. Bob,
I saw your anchor test results on another thread. Looks like the Manson Supreme (which looks closely related to the Rocna), came out close to the Delta plow, which looks like a practical alternative.

Thank you for your efforts,

Harvey
SleepyC :moon
 
Can't say I have seen one on any boat in our area. Does look nice and light at 16lbs, but think it may not launch and retrieve on a roller very well. Anchor searching, Isn't this fun :?: :wink


Wish I would have put the link to Dr Bob's anchor test into this thread :oops:

Harvey
SleepyC :moon
 
Back
Top