ANCHORING

[c_amos]

I've heard it said that one can not spend too much money on ground tackle.
 
  Thanks Craig, for coming here to discuss your anchor.  Good web site, lots of info.
 
 
 
As for me, I currently have a danforth on the bow, and a smaller one in the lazy rat, with 75' of rode as an 'emergency brake'.
 
  I also carry a #25 CQR  which makes it's home in the port cockpit locker.  This is what I put down when the wind is blowing and I want to rest.  I have drug the danforth, but the CQR has not ever moved on me.  (just my experience).
 
  The problem with the #25 CQR is that it somehow weighs about #300 when I am handling it.  :confused:   Not sure how that works, but the thing is really hard to mess with, guess it is the hinge that makes it tough to use.  I have a bow roller that I 'intend' to mount it on, which will keep me from lugging it back and forth, but I am thinking that anchor with 50' of chain are more then I want to deal with on a regular basis.
 
  What about that Fortress (aluminum) anchor?  I have heard good things about them, what does the panel think?

[craigsmith]

I went to the WASI/Buegel sites to look at their products - looks a *lot* like a Rocna, Craig. Out of simple curiosity: Were you attempting to improve their product, or they yours? Or did the 2 anchors develop in parallel, unbeknown to the designers?

Hi Epiphany. The WASI and Buegel are the same thing before you get confused. The "Buegel" is a German design which has been around for quite a while now, and has become something of a generic design. You can find many (very cheap) copies, especially in the Mediterranean, where it enjoys a good reputation for use in weed. WASI is a German steel company that also produces the original, and I suspect they just changed the name for the US market. I do not know why they only produce the WASI in stainless - perhaps they intend to only target the top-end.

Secondly, they do appear similar on account of the roll-bar, but the similarity really ends there. The major differences are the concave blade on the Rocna (greater holding power per unit of fluke area), the skids on the heel (to direct setting), an increase in tip-weight, and obviously the shank. Even the roll-bar is technically different.

I think I could fill a safe with money, and use it for an anchor; that would almost be cheaper than a WASI anchor! The recommended stainless setups from WASI would run close to US $500, not including shipping. :eek:

Stainless is always expensive. We are doing costing now for producing the Rocna in stainless, and they will not be cheap .

Essentially there are only two possible reasons for wanting an anchor in stainless: 1) it looks good, and 2) there is supposedly less maintenance (no worrying about re-galvanizing). Unfortunately it is impossible to make an anchor in stainless that is as strong as galvanized steel, and it is very expensive. These are unwanted compromises for most people.

The 0.2% yield stress (proof stress) on 316 stainless (which is what every stainless anchor manufacturer I know of uses) is something just over 200MPa. For the high tensile steel we use on the shank of the Rocna, this figure is about 700Mpa. You see the difference.

The galvanized product is significantly cheaper, Thank {Deity}. I checked prices for the Buegel, Bulwagga (which I've had and liked a *lot*, and so which is always included in my personal comparisons), and Rocna anchors, sized for our vessles, galvanized. The Bulwagga runs US $250, the Buegel about US $8 more than that, and - sadly - the price for the Rocna is only in CDN $ (365 of them), and I don't have the conversion rate handy for that (Hey, Craig - you oughta have those guys post an approximate price for the US boaters on their site, in approximate US $ or something...).

If you go to the main website (rocna.com), and select a country other than one in North America, you will find there is a currency conversion facility on the pricing page. The original NZ dollar prices can be changed to whatever you want. This is for anchors bought from New Zealand not Canada but will give you an idea. Unfortunately our North American people like to keep their pricing seperate. Here is a good FEX converter.

As far as pricing in general: I am not aware of any anchor that is a "rip-off". In other words, all prices generally reflect production costs. You get what you pay for. You must decide if the extra cost is buying you things you want.

For us small boat sailors, thats still no small chunk of change, especially for a 1) new, relatively unproven product, 2) that we cannot test before buying. A "Try Before You Buy" program through marine retailers would probably help manufacturers sell more product. Another possible idea: A manufacturer could amass a list of willing owners and their locations who would be willing to demonstrate their anchor locally for prospective buyers.

A last difference: Bulwagga is the only company to offer any solution to this "dilemma" on their site - in the form of  a 100% satisfaction guarantee (Cut and pasted, it says this: Refund of purchase price, less shipping, offered unconditionally to original owners purchasing anchor directly from the Bulwagga Anchor online store for a period of one year from date of purchase. ). I saw no mention of a similar guarantee on the websites of WASI, Buegel, or Rocna. If such a guarantee is offered, it should be given a place of prominence on the respective website. It is reassuring to know that the designer/manufacturer has that kind of faith in their product before spending ones hard-earned cash, and in fact was a major factor when I did purchase, unseen and untried, the Bulwagga I had.

We (and Canada) will do a similar thing on a case by case basis. We don't advertise it as we don't want people "borrowing" anchors for 12 months at a time. We have never had anyone return an anchor under such an agreement, except in the case where the anchor for some reason would not fit on their boats.

Craig - one last question, again born of simple curiosity: I'm sure you've seen the bubble-anchor that is out there (it has a plastic bubble at the aft upper edge of the shank, which is intended to *make* the anchor sit upright prior to digging in). Did you try or test having a place on your shank or rollbar where a similar flotation device could be affixed to a piece of line/leader, in order to facilitate having the Rocna land fluke-down always? The float line could also serve as a trip/retrieval line. If I had one, I'd have to try it, it would be so simple to do. I've seen your video and demonstrations on your site already, so I know your anchor is supposed to set in a short distance no matter which way it lands, this was just an idle thought I had while writing...

Not a practical solution. What testing we've studied of that idea does not like it. It does not work reliably. Then there are production issues, together with getting a plastic to last when exposed day-in-day-out to UV etc.

The Rocna always ends up fluke-down in the correct position. It is impossible to get it any other way.

[craigsmith]

The best holding in the P.S. tests was the Spade 80, with the Bul coming in second.

The Rocna was not tested at that time.  To me the Rocna is a Spade with a roll bar.  Not a bad idea.  We don't see it, a Spade being dragged along not digging in like the CQR eg.  So there must be something to the shaping of the shaft that will pull the blade down into the bed.  But still,  the roll bar looks like an improvement leading to more sure setting, especially if any grass is involved.

Of the three we now might agree have the greatest holding power:  Bulwagga, Rocna, Spade 80 - the spade is the most expensive, probably a function of its holding power.

Be careful with any testing, even Practical Sailor's. Their size selection methodology is very questionable, and some of their recent tests have been rather less impressive than their earlier ones. Aside from that, most testing that magazines do only consider several factors such as setting performance and holding power. There are many other factors which can be just as important.

The Spade is the most expensive because of its costs of production. The shank is demountable and hollow. This creates a stowable anchor and one with an increased percentage weight-on-tip (lighter shank). This also creates an anchor designed to come apart and one with a weaker shank. Again you must decide if this arrangement of cost and function is what you want.

What I would like to see is ACTUAL videos of anchors setting in the four or five different bottoms we are concerned with.  Mud, sand, weed, shale, rock.
I really appreciate what Practical Sailor is doing,  primarily because it is impartial.  I could be persuaded by a munufacturer video of his product outperforming others.  Don't know that I've been convinced yet.

That is fair. Our video is intended to be primarily a demonstration of the Rocna, and we show the two stalwarts of the "old generation" - i.e. the claw and plow - to show what we're improving on. It is not intended to be an exhaustive and impartial documentary.

I thought dry sand would more approximate a sand bottom under water because of the stirring-up of the bottom that an anchor might cause.  Assume the anchor breaking in under water would 'fluff' up the sand around the hole it makes.  Therefor dry sand, a lighter medium, perhaps.

No. Anchors have much more trouble setting in dry sand. They behave so differently to the point that such a test would be worse than useless. You would design an anchor differently for use in dry sand or soil.

A cruiser should carry more than two anchors.   The Bulwagga seems to be a good choice.  It's a lot of sheet metal that I guess gains strength by being buried.  Would more trust a hook in rocks.  Would like to hear what we have to say about this.  An oversize Spade migth be carried as the ultimate storm anchor.  And the Rocna as the primary for new unknown bottoms.  That's a bunch of cash,
BUT, it's also cheap up close and personal insurance.  NO???

YES!!!

The Bulwagga we would recommend as a superior alternative to a Danforth or Fortress style anchor. Similar "values", i.e. good holding power for light-weight.

And between the Spade and Rocna, well that is up to the individual :rolleyes:

[craigsmith]

I've heard it said that one can not spend too much money on ground tackle.
 
Thanks Craig, for coming here to discuss your anchor.  Good web site, lots of info.

Thank you for your comments and you're welcome.
 

The problem with the #25 CQR is that it somehow weighs about #300 when I am handling it.  :confused:   Not sure how that works, but the thing is really hard to mess with, guess it is the hinge that makes it tough to use.  I have a bow roller that I 'intend' to mount it on, which will keep me from lugging it back and forth, but I am thinking that anchor with 50' of chain are more then I want to deal with on a regular basis.

It's kind of an "unbalanced" anchor. All that lead weight in the tip combined with its articulation... makes it hard to handle. We like to advertise the fact that you can't lose a finger with the Rocna... :eek:
 

What about that Fortress (aluminum) anchor?  I have heard good things about them, what does the panel think?

1) Any aluminium anchor is automatically less strong than the steel equivalent. Consider this carefully before choosing one.
2) Danforth style anchors are now part of the "old generation". As above we would recommend a Bulwagga as a superior alternative.
3) Danforth style anchors in general give decent holding power but are not good primary anchors. They do not set reliably, and are not roll-stable. For this reason they're a good second anchor, as you can set them manually, then keep a watch on them. Your primary anchor needs to be a good holder plus able to reset itself should it come out, be reversed, etc. It also needs to be strong and durable if you're going to give it the abuse most cruisers will.

Right enough posting from me... :rolleyes:

[ElBeethoven]

"Faith,"

Go ahead and mount that anchor roller. At the VERY least, you'll be making the pull mostly horizontal rather than the directly vertical pull that gives us all lumbago. Being able to sit and pull makes a big difference, provided that you pull with your ARMS and ABS and not your back. I'm no expert but I spent many, many years in ballet class learning the mechanics and anatomy of the human body. Your lower back should only be used when perfectly upright such as standing or walking. Those muscles are T-I-N-Y and not at all designed to take a strain. Just as we've all heard "lift with your legs, not with your back," so it should be "weigh anchor with your biceps (and abs), not with your back."

Regarding spending "too much" on ground tackle, you don't need to spend too much, just "enough" to make sure that you're covered in all possible cases. WHERE you sail and the bottoms of those locales determine that. Having briefly reviewed this entire thread, I see that many people refer to the Practical Sailor test, but there is also a test that was done on Puget Sound by the American Sailing Assoc. in 1995. ("On June 17 and 18, 1995 the Safety at Sea Committee of the Sailing Foundation conducted anchor tests on five selected sites on Puget Sound.  The tests were co-sponsored by West Marine Products and attended by their representative, Chuck Hawley.  Also in attendance were Portland naval architect Robert Smith who has written and tested anchor behavior  extensively1, and Andy Peabody of Creative Marine who markets the  MAX anchor. Diving services and underwater video were donated by Dwayne Montgomery of Emerald City Diving.")

http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Anchor/anchor_study.htm

(Other studies are available on this website as well, and I recommend them as good reading to all.)

Other sources include the Pardeys and Nigel Calder. Both have tables in their books relating wind strength to anchor size and holding power. Being a firm believer in the laws of physics, I feel that these are definitely worth reading.

Despite the Puget Sound study confirming that the bruce has the LEAST holding power of the "mainstream" anchors, I opted for a 22-lb (oversized) bruce as my working anchor. The wind-pressure/holding-power tables will show that this anchor is OK up to about 750lbs of pull. On an Ariel, this means a sustained 70- to 80-knot wind. I can say with all honesty, that if I ever encounter a sustained 80-knot wind, I hope I'm at sea as far from land as humanly possible! Additionally, the Puget Sound study "confirms" (as much as is possible) that you just can't beat a bruce's SETTING record: 97% on the first try. Plus, 22lbs just isn't THAT much to be hauling on compared to a 45-lb fisherman. Lastly, I had a 22-lb bruce on my first cruising boat, a Paceship 26, which NEVER ONCE let me down despite that boat's infinitely greated windage.

On other boats, the couple that introduced me to sailing used as their working anchor (on their 57-foot gaff-rigged schooner) a 65-lb fisherman. They have cruised the Bahamas every winter for the last 20+ years and claim that it has never once let them down, unlike their CQR which they claim has dragged on numerous occasions. Given the rocky/coral bottom of most Bahamian Islands, I am not at all surprised.

In short, the money spent on ground tackle (I feel) should not be spent so much on EVERYTHING as it should on THE RIGHT THINGS. If you've never seen a rock on the bottom, no need to have a bruce or fisherman and all-chain rode. Get a danforth and some 1/2-inch nylon and sleep well! Contrarywise, if you intend to spend half your time in the tropics, 1/4-inch all-chain rode and a bruce or fisherman should be the mainstays of your repertoire.

And there, for what they're worth, are my opinions.

Jeremy