Attainable Adventure Cruising—What's New

Anchoring in the modern world

posted by Colin Speedie Web Site

Labels: Anchoring

Email this post to a friend:

Request for Broken Anchor Information and Photographs

posted by John and Phyllis Web Site

Our friend Darrell Nicolson, editor at Practical Sailor, is getting ready to do some destruction testing on anchors. We think that this is a really good idea since even a great holding anchor won’t do you any good if it bends or breaks under load. Some of the new anchor designs look a bit suspect to us in this regard and so it will be great to get some hard test data on this.

As part of his project Darrell is looking for anecdotal information about, and photographs of, anchors that have broken or bent. We encourage any of our readers that have had an anchor fail structurally to send as much information as possible to Darrell at practicalsailor@belvoirpubs.com. It is always good to have real world data to back up a study like this. He asks that image files not be larger than 10mb.

While talking of Practical Sailor, we have been getting this excellent publication for 20 years or so and highly recommend it. For those of you who are not familiar with the magazine, they test and report on boats and equipment. Since they don’t accept advertising they are not subjected to leverage from manufacturers like most other sailing magazines are. For subscription information see www.practical-sailor.com. Tell them we sent you.

Disclosure: We will be writing some pieces and maybe some answers to questions for Practical Sailor, so the above plug is not totally altruistic.

Labels: Anchoring

Email this post to a friend:

Yet MORE Anchor Stuff

posted by John and Phyllis Web Site

[Not surprisingly, our post suggesting that Rocna should not have scaled the results of the SAIL Magazine anchor test got a comment from Craig Smith at Rocna, which we have printed below, together with our response.]

"To compare results from a 32lb anchor directly to those from a 35lb anchor is conceptually little different to Practical Sailor drawing the insightful conclusion in their 1999 testing that the CQR is better than the Delta, because it held 583lbs average vs. the Delta's 496lbs.

The sizes tested? 35lb CQR, 22lb Delta. No, really.

(I'll say the obvious: work out the performance per lb).

The variation of anchor sizes in the sample of contenders chosen by West Marine is most unfortunate. It is also however unavoidable, because it is impossible to find the same size produced by all manufacturers. Variance around a median must be accepted in any real world test.

West Marine have in the past analyzed their results on a ratio of holding power to weight. SAIL in this case have regrettably elected not to.

Your comment John that "if SPADE were recommending an anchor of twice the weight for the test" our correction would be valid immediately conceeds that this adjustment is justified. It would be illogical to argue otherwise, even though the difference is smaller. If it is valid for that extreme, then it is valid for any variance whatsoever. In fact, the variance is about 10% which is in fact quite significant if the results are close.

The fact that the Spade requires a lead tip-weight is one flaw of the Spade which directly affects performance - as seen here. It is no excuse, no more so than the presence of the Rocna's roll-bar would be if the situation were reversed. Indeed, the fact that the Rocna of smaller weight features more surface area than the Spade at no expense of other factors is one of our sales points in advantage.

It would be logical to consider the performance on a surface-area to surface-area basis only if this was an intrinsically important factor. If one cares how much paint is required to turn one's anchor pink, then this may be so. However, weight is typically the definining factor of anchors of the same material, and is most critical on the bow of any boat. It also directly affects cost.

It is more regrettable that SAIL's analysis of their own data leaves much to be desired. In any case, a brief look at West Marine's own comments on the matter may be more appropriate than debating figures. In their current catalog is a table with summary comments of all anchors tested.

On the Spade:
"Somewhat mixed results with three OK pulls, and three maximum pulls. Set immediately each time."

On the Rocna:
"Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500lb and engaged immediately."

Those quotes are verbatim and complete. There I will leave it, unless you John would like a more in depth debate on the matter on your site. I am happy to discuss our analysis of the data, which is intended to be a fairer and more representative picture of the testing data."


Our Response:
I still don’t think it is a good idea for manufacturers to unilaterally change the result of independent tests. The Rocna is a great anchor and I don’t think that it needs this kind of manipulation of the data to sell; in fact I think it may even be detrimental in the long run.

I would also question the implied assertion that holding power to weight is the only valid criterion for anchor evaluation. If this were so, aluminum anchors like those from SPADE and Fortress would be clear winners. (Yes I know that Craig said “anchors of the same material", but that seems a convenient qualification to me.) However, as a long term user of an aluminum Fortress as a kedge I would never suggest that it was a superior all round anchor to a steel SPADE or Rocna. See this post for more some of our thoughts on aluminum anchors.

There are many other factors that make a good anchor including ease of stowing on the bow roller, ability to exhaust rocks from the blade, susceptibility to break out in a wind shift, strength and, most of all, ability to set and hold in many different bottom types.

We know the SPADE is a good anchor and a breakthrough in performance over traditional anchors because we have used it several hundred times in many different bottom types from the Bahamas to Greenland and many places in-between on both sides of the Atlantic; the same places where we used a CQR, Luke and Fortress in the past.

From the anecdotal information we are getting, we suspect that the Rocna would have done as well as the SPADE for us. Who knows, it might even have done better, although it is hard to imagine how since the SPADE has never dragged once set and has only failed to set twice in all that time. However, to use one test, done with a few pulls in three similar locations and scaled by weight, to say that the Rocna is the best anchor is, I think, a leap way too far.

Labels: Anchoring

Email this post to a friend:

Comment of the Month

posted by John and Phyllis Web Site

[We received this email from an obviously very experienced sailor and are publishing it below since we think his thoughts have value, particularly his final conclusion, which we have printed in bold. Colin also corresponded with us about and is engaged in a search in Europe for good quality high tensile anchor chain for his new Ovni. We will be publishing his findings in a later post.]

I've been reading through your excellent site, especially in regards to things that work, and those that don't.

I have worked as a commercial yacht charter skipper and wildlife researcher in the UK since the early nineties, skippering a variety of craft from a traditional sailing trawler down to our current Frers 39 cutter. Most of that time has been spent in the western isles of Scotland, a magnificent but wild cruising ground.

During that time I've used most types of anchor - CQR, Bruce, Danforth, Fisherman etc, all of which, in my view, have their good and bad points. But like yourself, I was most frustrated with the CQR, even though ours was oversize for the boat. In the hard, fine sand of the Isles of Scilly I came the closest I have ever come to losing a boat, when our CQR dragged in 60 knot gusts. Many, many times I cursed the thing when trying to get it to bite in any anchorage where there was weed present.

So when the new generation of anchors came along I was ready to give one a try, and plumped for the Rocna (having seen the video). As there was at that time no importer in the UK, I imported it direct from NZ at great expense, and I have to say it has proved (over the last two seasons) worth every penny. Not only does it set instantly like a car's handbrake and hold like a rock, but, remarkably it does so in such a wide variety of substrates. It really is the best piece of kit I've bought in recent years.

British yachties are very conservative - most of them will not hear a word against the good old CQR. When I wrote a piece on a forum reporting how I found the Rocna, one worthy dismissed me as a plant of the manufacturer - oh dear. But you are absolutely right that most people who sail "outside the box" a little wouldn't have a CQR as a main anchor these days, any more than they would want to fly across the Atlantic in a biplane. I am convinced of one thing - anyone who ever tries one of the new generation of anchors - Spade, Rocna, Manson - will not be going back to their old CQR in a hurry.

Colin

Labels: Anchoring

Email this post to a friend:

Anchor battles, more SPADE versus Rocna

posted by John and Phyllis Web Site

A few weeks ago, while buried in launching and commissioning “Morgan’s Cloud”, we received an e-mail from Alain Poiraud, inventor of the SPADE anchor, questioning the validity of a graph of relative anchor holding power provided by Rocna and our decision to use it in this post.

I should point out that we were posting Craig Smith’s (a principal at Rocna) comments in there entirety (as we had done some weeks before for Alain) and therefore we were not making any comment on the validity of the graph by posting it. In fact we placed the following editorial comment under it: “The chart above was adjusted by Rocna based on the original SAIL Magazine chart, which you can see on the third page of this PDF.”

Now that we have a few moments, I have had another look at the original chart from the SAIL Magazine anchor tests and the chart that Rocna derived from it. The two charts give a somewhat different overall impression, although the Rocna still just beats out the SPADE on the original, but by a narrower margin.

As I understand it, Rocna scaled the original findings in proportion to anchor weight to generate their chart. I would be the first to admit that I’m no engineer, but it seems to me that this kind of scaling of results is not really valid. For example such treatment would slaughter a fisherman type which, none the less, can be a very useful anchor in rock and kelp covered bottoms. (See this post)

When it comes to the Rocna to SPADE comparison, surely Rocna are scaling apples and oranges since the SPADE is ballasted with lead and the Rocna is not. Sure if SPADE were trying to recommending an anchor of twice the weight for the test, Rocna would have a point to question the results, but we are talking 3 pounds difference here. It would even be possible for SPADE to turn the tables on Rocna and scale the same graph by surface area and thereby come up with a completely different result.Chart that Rocna derived from the original SAIL magazine test.

In our opinion, choosing anchors is hard enough without the manufacturers changing the results of independent studies in ways that benefit their products.

As we have said before, we have no opinion on which of these anchors is better. We gather that in some other tests the SPADE has done marginally better than the Rocna (depending on how you read the results), the opposite of the SAIL test.

Frankly we think that these small testing differences are pretty meaningless in the real world. The point is that both are fine anchors that are dramatically better than the old style anchors we were all using up until a few years ago. And, if you are still using an old style anchor, the purchase of either a Rocna or a SPADE will definitely increase your safety and enjoyment of cruising.

Labels: Anchoring

Email this post to a friend:

Equal Time for Rocna (John)

posted by John and Phyllis Web Site

A couple of weeks ago we received a comment from Alain Poiraud, designer of the SPADE anchor, which we posted; a few days after that we received an email from Craig Smith, of Rocna, which, in the interest of fairness and balance, we are posting below. Craig, while not the designer of the Rocna, was involved in the process and all the testing, and is clearly very knowledgeable about anchors.

I just want to emphasize that we are not setting ourselves up as arbitrators of a best anchor battle between SPADE and Rocna; however, several resources are mentioned that may help you choose between these two fine anchors. I would also restate that we are skeptical of reading too much into anchor tests, particularly between two great performers like the SPADE and Rocna.

As we have said before, for us the important points to be taken from all of this and our own experience with the SPADE are:

1. The SPADE and Rocna blow old style anchors like the CQR and Bruce out of the water, so to speak. To put it quite simply, changing to one of these anchors will change your cruising life, it certainly has ours.
2. Alain and Peter (designer of the Rocna) are two real voyaging sailors who have used their smarts and experience to move the state of the art a huge step forward. Both SPADE and Rocna are proud of, and aggressively promote and defend, their respective brain children. In my opinion, that is as it should be and is nothing to criticize either of them for.
3. It would be a mistake to ignore what these guys have to say, just because they are promoting their own products. The very fact that they were able to come up with dramatically better anchor designs shows that both companies know a heck of a lot more about anchors than the rest of us.

• Rocna 15, Steel, 32 lb. Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500lb and engaged immediately.
• Spade S80, Steel & lead, 34.4 lb Somewhat mixed results with three OK pulls, and three maximum pulls. Set immediately each time.

Labels: Anchoring

Email this post to a friend: