Anchors & TEST Results of New Generation Anchors EXCELLENT & Important

[Stephen Butler]

Not the correct venue for this comment, but I cannot resist.  Based on my personal experience with Practical Sailor, i.e., subsscribing twice and neither receiving a single issue, nor a password for site access, I would take anything from the publication with a grain of salt.  If a business cannot conduct itself correctly, one has to wonder about its analysis.  Just one individual's experience and view.

[mainesail]

Quote:
"Anecdotes do not make good science.  For good, unbiased info on the many anchors on the market I suggest reading Practical Sailor.  They have run a bunch of controlled anchor comparisons.  They are the "Consumer Reports" of sailing as they accept no advertising."



The Sail magazine test results were about as unbiased as you can get unless you consider that they actually gave preferential treatment to the Claw and the CQR! The Practical Sailor tests compared 33# anchors to 25# anchors?? How is that a fair comparison..

The Sail Magazine article had more than one test per anchor. They tested all the anchors at three different locations with multiple sets, pulls and scopes and they then reported exactly what the results were.

People on other forums have made ridiculous claims that Sail gave preference and may have "fixed" the results to satisfy advertisers. Using this logic Sail magazine really cut off their supply of ad money. It seems three of the anchors that got beat up the worst were the Lewmar Claw , the CQR (also Lewmar) and the West Marine Performance 20. Lewmar is one of Sails larger advertisers! In this months issue they have one full pager and one quarter page ad alone. West Marine's VP of product development Chuck Hawley was actually involved in the testing and WM also spends huge ad money with Sail. Three of the best performers the Manson, Hydrobubble & Rocna have no advertising in Sail Magazine at all and West Marine does not sell any of those anchors! Biased based on ad money I think so! With the preferential treatment of the Claw & CQR this bias is clear but it still did not help either of those anchors perform better! The top performing anchors data speaks for its self..

This test however was a very "biased" test when it came to the CQR & Claw but not their competitors. They went so far as to have in-depth discussions to figure out a way to get the Bruce and CQR to set better so they could at least get load test results. Now this test was only a hard sand test so you can't translate these results to a soft mud bottom but the authors made it quite clear that these were hard sand tests...

Here's a direct quote: "The CQR is another tried-and-true anchor that yielded surprising results. The maximum load we recorded during our first three pulls on 5:1 scope was a very short spike up to 350 pounds, but most of the time we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom."

This to me sounds like they perhaps had to give the CQR (ie: Lewmar ad money) a little "extra" by going slower than with other anchors and trying to manually coax it to set. How can anyone claim bias against the CQR when they potentially gave it preferential treatment? This seems a little unfair if you are replicating test results using the SAME technique with all anchors to make it as fair as possible. The results don't surprise me as I own a Bruce and a CQR and though they perform ok they are not always quick setters (CQR) or high holding (Bruce). My assertion that 80% of boaters never actually set an anchor and get very lucky using basically a "rope on a rock" seems more true than ever.

Last summer on a friends boat he left me at the helm while he went to drop his CQR. I backed down, like I always do, gradually increasing to 80% throttle and the anchor dragged!

Here's how the conversation went "Geez that's never happened before","Really? Lets try it again",.

On the second attempt it had an initial bite (starting to burry) but when I applied power it broke free. "Your giving it to much throttle and ripping it out of the bottom", "it's an anchor!", "let me try", "ok".

So I now go up to let the anchor down & he puts the boat in reverse gets it moving and then puts it in neutral and we get an initial bite. "There see it's set", "No it's just starting to dig in it now needs to be set", "It's always held me before", "Have you ever experienced a 30 knot blow on the hook?", "No" "Well a 30 knot blow on your boat is the equivalent of roughly 900 pounds of pull on the anchor did you know that?", "No", "Did you know that the motor on this boat can barely re-produce 350 pounds of pull wide open?" "No", "Well let's let it set your way and in a couple of hours we'll simulate 20 knots of wind with the motor and see and happens", "You're on". You can probably guess what happened. Because we never properly set the anchor it dragged! We did get it to set that day using a 10:1 scope then shortening to 5:1. My friend could not beleive that the CQR could hold his boat using 80% throttle and was totally surprised by it! Scary I know.... From my experience I find a CQR likes a minimum of a 7:1 to set but it sometimes prefers more..

He now understands that an anchor should hold your boat at wide open in reverse without moving. This is a guy who has been sailing for 25 years and admittedly dragged "perhaps 20 times but never with my CQR"! Once is to much! It's imperative the anchor gets "set" properly. Yes the CQR sets better in soft bottoms than in sand but not all boaters are lucky enough to always drop the hook in a soft bottom. So if you're in a hard bottom make sure to get it set. The CQR will set well but it may take more than one attempt. Don't ever be fooled by the "initial bite". With a CQR this is a situation where the anchor is laying on it's side with the tip just starting to dig in. Like the picture at the beginning of Sail Magazines article. If you stop there on any sort of wind or current shift the anchor will twist out. A CQR needs to be vertical and buried to the shank or it's not properly set. If it's properly buried it can sometimes survive a 180 shift without "breaking free". I suggest some of you begin diving on your anchors in a shallow spot to see what's going on down there I think you'd be surprised...

[reedbr]

14 months, that's a lot of hang time on this thread.  I wasn't aware of the additional tests in the magazines.  Some were very interesting. 

I wanted to update that my 33# Bruce (kind of) failed me once last season.  The bottom was covered with oyster shells in a shallow cove near an old shucking house.  It didn't drag, but I had a heck of a time getting it to set.  When it finally did, I still wasn't happy about it.  I did not sleep well that night.  Other than that I'll hang onto it as my primary as it seems to be becoming a collector item!  Can anchor's actually appreciate?   

[mercedesman]

I have used CQR and Bruce in mud, rock and sand and Bruce has shown to be most versatile. I would not hesitate to use it again.
I was anchored on short scope with strong currents and a mud bottom in a 45' Ketch on an all chain rode. The scope was barely 2.5:1. I had an injured back and had to stay put, could only crawl around on deck and a deep low was headed my way. The winds made it up to 45kn. The anchor held. The only real assist for the anchor was the nylon snubbers I tied into the chain to help absorb the shock. The system worked well, the boat did not drag though at times it felt as if there were a mad-man at the top of the mast shaking the boat as she heeled up to 20 degrees (cross winds and currents). The Bruce did a great job and I would not hesitate to purchase another. (It was a 66lb Bruce on 3/8ht chain, all chain rode).

On the other hand, I have drug CQR's (on all chain) through rock only to set a smaller Bruce on 50' chain with nylon rode.

Danforth's have a tendency to drag in the places I have tried them, mainly hard sand, never in rock, didn't try it in mud.

Hope this helps,

Mike

[Stu Jackson]

Here's an update from Maine Sail:  http://forums.catalina.sailboatowners.com/showthread.php?t=112776

This has turned out to be a great discussion of BOTH anchors AND an important review of stainless steel in anchor system use:  like, DON'T!!!

[Hawk]

Thats it. A picture is worth a thousand words.
I'm trading up from my 22 Delta to the Rocna just like Steve. But 33 or 44?? I know Steve's opinion, but he's dodging potential Mexican hurricanes.

Hawk

[Stu Jackson]

OK, let's be clear about weights.  33# is about the size of a Rocna 15, 15 kg.  Our Rocna 10 is 22 lbs.  2.2 lbs per kg.  The Rocna 15 is what Steve has.  a 44 Rocna is way overkill for our boats.  Please read the anchoring sizing table thread, here, and size your anchoring system properly: http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,4990.0.html

Steve's Rocna 15 held him through the chubasco event.  100 ft of 5/16 in chain.

[mainesail]

OK, let's be clear about weights.  33# is about the size of a Rocna 15, 15 kg.  Our Rocna 10 is 22 lbs.  2.2 lbs per kg.  The Rocna 15 is what Steve has.  a 44 Rocna is way overkill for our boats.  Please read the anchoring sizing table thread, here, and size your anchoring system properly: http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,4990.0.html

Steve's Rocna 15 held him through the chubasco event.  100 ft of 5/16 in chain.

I agree the 15kg or 33# is more than enough. The 44# could qualify as a permanent mooring for a C-34.

Our 15kg has survived 55+ now and three to four foot chop on a loaded boat weight of 18,500-19,000 pounds & 36 feet. I only wish the bimini fared as well.. We did not move an inch and we had spun a 360 cookie trail before morning. We get some nasty fall winds in the NE. Prior to this event the most we had seen was 45-50, and again zero issues.

[waterdog]

"Steve's Rocna 15 held him through the chubasco event.  100 ft of 5/16 in chain."

Just a small clarification.   I'm sure a 15kg probably would have held just fine.   But my system is engineered so that when it's blowing 50 I just calmly order another marguerita rather than rushing through the rain down to the beach to check. 

My Rocna is 20kg.   I have no regrets.   If I was cruising the Northwest, I'd own a 15kg.


     

[Stu Jackson]

I should read Steve's signature more often.  Sorry.

[Hawk]

I emailed an inquiry direct to Rocna below and they responded - also set out below:


I have a 1990 Catalina 34 sailboat which the manufacturer states has displacement of 12,500 lbs (5.6 t). However the consensus of owners is that the boat is much heavier with accurate weights in the range of 17,800 lbs (8.09 t) loaded without crew.

Your sizing chart says for a  33' boat equal to or less than 8 t you recommend the Rocna 15. Then for a 36' boat the Rocna 15 is only recommended for 7 t or less.

Response from Rocna:
"You are correct, when a boat is close to or on maximum displacement we recommend for peace of mind and safety's sake you go to the next available size. Of course the final decision will rest with you as there are a number of variables to consider as previously stated.

The additional 5kgs is not really relevant, as the blade area is of more importance for the super high holding power. On checking with our production manager he also recommends a 20kg Rocna but again the final choice is yours."



Just thought the exchange may be of interest...........I'm undecided as not sure the 20 is really necessary, but I do like to sleep when it blows at anchor.

Hawk

[Ron Hill]

Tom : What else did you ever think the anchor maunfacture was going to say. (a deep thought - "The final decision rests with you") ?!?  
Go for the larger!! 

[Rick Johnson]

Hawk,

It was interesting to hear what the manufacture had to say!  I'm also trying to decide which size to buy and lean towards the 20 kg.

Thanks for posting,

Rick

[Hawk]

Thanks Rick.

Ron,
Well I certainly didn't expect the manufacturer to recomend a 33# Bruce combined with a 15# sentinal which is what you report using, particularly when Peter Smith, the inventor of the Rocna says this:

Don't bother with kellets (AKA anchor angels sentinals or buddies)
Kellets are supposed to increase the holding capacity of an anchor system by holding the rode low and hence keeping the angle of pull on the anchor closer to the ideal of parallel to the seabed. In practice, their effect even when deployed in an optimal point on rode (close to the anchor) is very minimal and the high loads which must be expected on a tandem rig will straighten the rode very quickly. They have negligible effect on ultimate anchor performance in a regular anchoring set-up, and even less when tandems are deployed. For more on kellets, study the article "Anchor Rode Kellets".
Figure 7: Simulation of a large kellet added to an all-chain rode. Even at this comparatively low tension, it makes virtually no difference to the angle of pull.
Source: "Mixed Rode Calculations" spreadsheet by Alain FraysseIn the context of overall efficiency, the kellet is a bad investment also. The weight of the kellet used instead in the form of a larger anchor is a far more sensible tactic.


My inquiry arose from the posts under the Displacement thread from Owners who have seen their boats weighing in at far more than Catalina's stated displacement, ie. more like 17,600+ (8 t) loaded. On Rocna's sizing recomendations they do mention 33' loa and 36' loa, but not 34'.
I was looking for confirmation that, arguably, Steve has it right with his Rocna 20 (44#)for an 8t 34' boat...and not just for Mexico.
I am taking the boat north from Vancouver this year up past Desolation Sound to the Broughtons where it can blow 40 through inlets and narrow anchorages just for fun, and depths for anchoring are much more than you'd like. Oh, and your 20% off coupon for Boat Assist US ain't no good up there, cause there ain't no Boat Assist.....it's not the Chesepeake.
My sentinal will be a 10# sack of Molson Beer hanging from the rode.

Hawk

[Ron Hill]

Tom : I did use a Bruce 33# and a 15# mushroom, but you forgot the 35ft of chain, so the mushroom was 35 ft away from the anchor and acted as the weight of another 15 ft of chain.

However, a few years ago I added a windlass and changed to 50 ft of chain (wrote that up in the Mainsheet).  Can't/won't argue by Email thru a third party with the maker of your anchor.  Go for it!!

The C34 really weights about 15.5K lbs.  Could never get Catalina to admit it, but they never deny ed it!

Like Stu says, your boat your choice.  A thought