Anchor Setting Comparison (Video)

[Maine Sail]

and you say what? There is really NO BEST anchor and that is why most cruisers should have multiple anchors that work best in very different conditions.

Amen!!

http://www.practical-sailor.com/boatus/anchors/4rhod4598/99anchor2.html

This is just one test regarding holding power and not geared toward setting.

But different areas see different things and setting and or re-setting can be a very, very important aspect of ground tackle.

If it takes me three tries to get an anchor to set in a particular location, what are my odds that the boat, all by itself, can successfully do this at 2:00 am on a wind or tidal shift, when the anchor rolls out?

I'll take a boater with good technique and proper anchoring skills on an "old gen" up wind of me before one with poor skills and bad technique on a "new gen" up wind of me.

Technique, I feel, is still the most important..

Typical anchoring cookie trails for our locale..

 

[Franklin]

interesting how they talk about the setting in mud. Maybe that explains what happened with my boat. It was blowing 25 knots when I dropped the anchor. The Bulwagga anchor seem to dig in just like it always did and hold. I figured there was no need to back down on it because the wind was already digging it in. I watched it for about 15 minutes and felt safe and then setup the dinhgy and left about 30 minutes later. All was fine. The wind picked up to 45 knots as I was told by a friend weeks later and it was reported 5' waves which dragged the anchor to the seawall and bashed my boat badly for 30 minutes before it was rescued. The two other boats dragged as well but they were on the boat so they took it to a dock.

After reading that article, I think I finally understand what happened. The Bulwagga must have set well in the soft mud and it was enough to hold it in place with 25 knots of wind and 1' waves, but because I didn't back it down and make sure it was dug into the hard stuff below the soft mud, it didn't hold when the extra 20 knots of wind and 4 more feet of waves came.

It very well may have held if I backed it down even though I'm still not so sure it works well in wavy conditions, but one thing is for sure, I will never let the boat out of sight with only one anchor set. I have two very good anchors and I should use them both if I plan on leaving the boat for hours.

I've used my Bulwagga a couple of times since my mishap and it worked flawlessly then too. One time was in a river with a 3 knot current so I felt that was a pretty good test. Reading that link also helped restore a little faith in my anchor as well.


The good news is that I've fixed my boat. I learned a lot about boat construction, fiberglass and have a new found understand and confidence in my boat and my ability to fix it as well. I also now own my boat so I'm a little closer to my crusing days, so sometimes it's good to make mistakes and to tell everybody so they learn from them.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Perhaps...

Thanks, Ron, you're right, and I should have phrased it more reasonably; allow me to elaborate:

For instance, in an age where sextants are no longer used for casual navigation and the next generation of instruments, called GPS, are being widely used, why is it that some people still insist on using solely the sextant? [Emphasis is on solely, as in only.]

For background purposes, our C22 (1983-7) had a Danforth. Our C25 (1987-98) had a Danforth. Our C34 (1998-present) had a 22# or 32# physically huge Danforth and a small early (1986) version of the "performance" Danforth, maybe 11 to 15 lb. at most.

When we bought our C34 in 1998, I did not anchor out a whole lot then primarily because I no longer trusted the Danforths, although later we did begin to anchor regularly in only protected anchorages with no current or wind shifts when wind and anchor loads could get up. Sometimes we'd wake up in the morning facing the other way, but it was always calm.

After doing my due diligence on anchors, at the time in 1998 & 99, we purchased a small Bruce, used at a swap meet. Again because of our fortuitous anchorages over the next few years, that Bruce served us well, although I was always concerned about its relatively diminutive size: small anchor, BUT it was great on my back! It did, however, set immediately compared to the many times we had to reset the Danforths in the past. We know how to anchor, and have the technique.

After a few anchors out with higher winds & loads (once because we were racing the next day and "had" to go out the night before, and the other with a friend rafted up in our "normal, everything's usually almost always OK place") I embarked on more anchor research determined to invest in a larger anchor and size my new anchor system.

At the time of my homework and research, in very early 2007, Maine Sail "published" his very informative and helpful research here and on our C34 website as noted and linked in my Reply #12 above.

This was just as the new "next generation" anchors were coming on the market. They did not exist before. Prior to learning about them, I was contemplating a larger Bruce, which per the link was also just ceasing production!

I sized my new system based on that input, Rocna's sizing recommendations and very good footnotes, and the anchor sizing tables from Calder's Handbook which I have previously linked and which are on our website as well. The link explains how I sized our system.

I was afforded a good introductory price on the Rocna via the offices of the local C36 Fleet here in San Francisco (thanks again, fellas), so I purchased that instead of the MS, which I would have been just as pleased with based on reports from Maine Sail.

Just before I bought the Rocna, and maybe between the time it was ordered and delivered I had the pleasure of finally sailing around the Farallon Islands, 25 miles off the coast of northern California, a 25 year been-sailing-here-wanted-to-do-that trip. We ended up in Drake's Bay that night. Right as we anchored wind piped from 8-10 to 20 and ++ all night long.

Our usual anchorages are sticky MUD.

Drake's Bay is hard packed SAND.

The Bruce held with all my rode out (12:1) instead of the usual 7:1. I think that's why it held but since few of us are diving on our anchors these days, I'll never know, and neither will anyone else.

From everything I'd read, and also in this thread, CQRs do not set well in hard packed sand. While I don't always anchor in that material, I had no choice at Drake's Bay.

I believe that the CQR would NOT have held. I think the Bruce did by the thickness of my fingernails.

Can't wait to go back to try the Rocna!

That's why 1) I did not buy a CQR; and 2) I bought a Rocna.

And that's why I ask (and, Ron, you're right I should do better at it, so thanks again) why people with CQRs given this growing body of evidence, continue to insist that their anchors are just peachy keen. I think Maine Sail's comments in his recent post sum it up: "works sometimes." This is somewhat different than "use different anchors for different bottoms."

But shouldn't they work pretty much all the time? My Rocna works in BOTH mud and hard packed sand. Would I want to switch anchors because of the two bottoms, when I could just as well have one anchor that works well in both? Isn't that why we buy anchors - for a wide variety of use, with superior holding, and the ability to reset?

So, same ?: If your $50K to $220K or more boat isn't worth $400 of a new generation anchor, hasn't it occurred to you that you could lose your boat if you keep hanging off a CQR?

 

[sailingdog]

Thanks for the video MaineSail. I'd point out that ground tackle is an important piece of emergency gear and often the only thing between your boat and disaster...

Recently, I wrapped a line around the prop on my boat and was being pushed by a 15 knot wind towards a marina full of boats... I lowered the Rocna 15 anchor on about 2.5:1 scope, since I didn't have enough room to let out more scope, and it set immediately and gave me the time to deal with the prop wrap.

For most <35' boats, a good anchor—either a Rocna 15 or Manson Supreme 35, 30' of 5/16" G43 high-test chain, a load rated 3/8" shackle and 200' of 5/8" nylon anchor rode is less than $1000.... and IMHO it is rather foolish for people to settle for anything less as ground tackle.

 

[dserrell]

1

 

[Maine Sail]

Ahoy Main Sail,

Great video and pictures, however the picture of the claw anchor is "not correct". Claw anchors initially lay on the bottom like the pictures below:

David,

It is mostly correct, more often than not, probably because that is a genuine Bruce anchor, not a knock off. I have witnessed the Bruce land in this orientation far more often than the photo you show. If the boat is moving backwards when the Bruce touches down, which it should be, it should orient like you show and dig in quickly. Unfortunately I like to observe others around me anchoring and most of what I see is a pile of chain dropped right smack dab on top of the anchor then the boat simply drifts back. If this is done that is how the Bruce will usually behave..

Based on your comments I just dropped my 33 pound Bruce off my 12' high deck 10 times. In the drops it landed in the orientation I showed 7 times. Or a 70% ratio..

The shank on the genuine Bruce, proportionally, is probably heavier than a knock off and as such that is how it tends to orient.

Either way it lands the Bruce is still a good setter IMHO..

 

[MoonSailer]

Have you had trouble with the Rocna getting fouled due to the loop??? The loop looks perfect to foul on stuff. I mean I have had my Danforth foul on logs and have found several anchors that were fouled and left behind. I scuba dive and at one time had about a dozen anchors that I had found while diving. Usually they were wedged into rocks or fouled on a tree . The loop on the Rocna just looks perfect for fouling and even with a trip line might not be retrieveable. My claw with a trip line has always been retrieved but even with a trip line it has been hard to retrieve a few times. I usually try to anchor in less than 15' of water so that the anchor can be retrieved by snorkle. But some places I reaaly don't want to dive. Pea soup black water is no fun and whatever fouled the anchor could entrap a diver. Again how many people have lost their Rocna due to a foul bottom as is so common in many anchorages. Heck one time I anchored and pulled up three anchors!!!!! My anchor fouled on another anchor line that was fouled to yet another anchor line. Fortunately I was able to dive and retrieve all three.

 

[Maine Sail]

Have you had trouble with the Rocna getting fouled due to the loop??? The loop looks perfect to foul on stuff. I mean I have had my Danforth foul on logs and have found several anchors that were fouled and left behind. I scuba dive and at one time had about a dozen anchors that I had found while diving. Usually they were wedged into rocks or fouled on a tree . The loop on the Rocna just looks perfect for fouling and even with a trip line might not be retrieveable. My claw with a trip line has always been retrieved but even with a trip line it has been hard to retrieve a few times. I usually try to anchor in less than 15' of water so that the anchor can be retrieved by snorkle. But some places I reaaly don't want to dive. Pea soup black water is no fun and whatever fouled the anchor could entrap a diver. Again how many people have lost their Rocna due to a foul bottom as is so common in many anchorages. Heck one time I anchored and pulled up three anchors!!!!! My anchor fouled on another anchor line that was fouled to yet another anchor line. Fortunately I was able to dive and retrieve all three.

I have over 150 anchorings on the Rocna now, maybe more as I was not so good about my log book this year, and it did come up with a rock once but still held to 2400 RPM in reverse. I also pulled up an American flag and a lobster pot and at Damariscove Island this year I pulled up a huge tree of 15 foot long kelp but the anchor again held to 2400 RPM in reverse and set on the first try. For years I avoided anchoring at Damariscove Island but this was before owning my Manson or Rocna. Even the Spade's had difficulty there due to the heavy kelp.

Again, no anchor is perfect. My Bruce used to catch rocks too & my Fortress catches stuff in between the shank and flukes, but in over 150 sets when I have anchored, except the time I caught the lobster pot, it has set nearly instantaneously on the first try every time. There are only two anchors that I can say that about...

I would not own a Super Max, Bruce, Rocna, Manson Supreme Spade, and others I have owned, had my CQR given me anywhere near the performance my Rocna & Manson do.

I have no bias towards Rocna or the Manson Supreme as neither has performed any better than the other. I do however have a bias towards actual performance in my home sailing waters.

There may be a better performer out there I just have not used it yet. If I could lose the hoop and find an anchor that performed as well I'd probably buy it.

I can only present my actual experience with all these anchors. I own them, Bruce, Manson Supreme, Rocna, Fortress, CQR's, Super Max, Spade's and have owned a Delta, so I can easily pick and choose, based on experience with them, which one to use as my primary anchor to protect my life, my family and my vessel.

It would be my best guess that if there was someone out there who also owned all the anchors I do, and had experience with each of them, they too would choose to use the Manson Supreme or the Rocna as their primary. If I were to give you all these anchors, take price out of the equation, and tell you to play with them, put them through the paces, anchor in storms and experience 360 swings and tidal shifts I think you see what I and many other happy ex CQR or Bruce users have seen in the Manson Supreme and Rocna.

If I experienced the CQR or Bruce as the best performers for our sailing waters the Rocna would be under the deck with the other new gens like the Super Max and the aluminum Spade which I too bought & paid for. I am not just a fan of all "new gen" anchors. To meet my rather picky standards they have to perform. Unfortunately the aluminum Spade and Super Max, despite being new gen, did not. As I said I do have a "performance" bias but not a brand or "new gen" vs. "old gen" bias.

P.S, Maine gets lots of silty water, hate it, but when we get off shore on some of the islands, there is often very clear water. I like to put on my wet suit and go for a dive to see what's going on down there and maybe scrub the waterline and clear weeds from the prop..

 

[Rick D]

One Digression...

...hey, Franklin! Don't you owe us a long discussion of your experience fixing your totalled 376

Or, are you too busy sailing and all that stuff

 

[Franklin]

I'll start a new thread later today

 

[Stu Jackson]

Roll bars & fouling

Have you had trouble with the Rocna getting fouled due to the loop??? The loop looks perfect to foul on stuff.

Conversely, wouldn't the loop [actually the "roll bar"!] be a perfect place to tie the float/trip line to, with a cow hitch on a loop.

One could make the point that the roll bar would minimize chances for fouling because it would stop the anchor from getting caught in places it shouldn't go, as compared to, say, a straight claw type.

 

[Bob S]

This has been an interesting post. It is much like the "Whats the best boat" posts, everyone loves what they've got. I have not seen an anchor post that doesn't get heated in the 3 years I've been frequenting this forum.

All this discussion is about properly setting the anchor and knowing your anchorage bottom. After reading so many posts, I think everyone here has a good idea how to set their anchors. Most feel comfortable and sleep like a rock on them.

It appears to me the most important attribute an anchor should have is it's ability to reset itself without backing down on it. Franklin lost his boat because his anchor didn't reset yet he road out Hurricane Ike, go figure! I think any anchor will loose it's grip if the boat does a 180° and it begins to blow. If you're ashore or asleep you need a anchor that will reset. Just watching that video, I'd feel more comfortable knowing I was on a Ronca or Mason Supreme.

 

[Chuckbear]

MS, Lots of the info you provide and your videos are really great. But as a CQR and Manson user, the CQR for decades, what the video shows and the problem with most all anchor tests are that one anchor set better than others in this particular instance in this particular bottom and with this particular rode, well you get the meaning. It is good info, don't get me wrong, but it does not really attest to the setting of the Rochna over the CQR in a variety of conditions and the big question, would the bottom conditions, etc for the area one will cruise and anchor be the same as your test conditions. Somewhere else the CQR might do a better job than the Rochna. For cruisers, it is a compromise for a variety of conditions that help determine which anchor is going to work best. Lots of discussion around on the subject. Because your experience and the vast good information you provide some might automatically assume from your video that this is the ultimate anchor, and it may or may not be. Chuck

 

[Ross]

In the soft bottoms found on the Chesapeake my CQR sets flawlessly but if the point of that hook doesn't get a start into the bottom it would/will just skid along on top. Gross weight may come into play but not with the size anchors that most of us use. A fisherman will set and hold very reliably but it will foul and it is a bitch to stow. I have a 15 pound Northill that will set in the Zoysia grass on my front lawn. I carry that as a stern hook.

 

[Maine Sail]

Ultimate anchor..?

Because your experience and the vast good information you provide some might automatically assume from your video that this is the ultimate anchor, and it may or may not be. Chuck

Chuck,

I think I'm very careful to never call any anchor the "ultimate anchor" or even the best. I made every attempt just, as Chuck Hawley & crew did in the Sail Magazine tests, to coax a set out of the my CQR on that intertidal area. It just would not set like the Spade, Rocna and Manson did in that bottom type. It is what it is..hard...

I do however believe in the evolution of anchors and that some really do perform differently or perhaps better than others over a wider variety of bottoms. There are tons of posts on the various forums you and I visit that speak about setting difficulties with CQR's. Many of these posts are from experienced cruisers. I'm not describing anything anyone who's used one probably has not gone through I am merely showing them how happens and what it looks like when it does or does not.

This was posted just a few minutes ago on another forum by a guy at anchor as he typed:

We are anchored in Weems Creek North of Annapolis right now in 20kts gusts to 30kts. Two boats with CQRs have spent the past 5 hours setting, dragging, resetting, etc. Luckily, there is no room upwind of us...

As you can see I am not the only one to face these experiences and I dealt with it with both of my CQR's over a long period of use. I did not like the fact that I did not feel comfortable anchoring is places my wife and I loved because I did not feel comfortable with my anchors ability to set. That 35 CQR in the video has a lot of use on it but it forced us to often avoid places with tough bottom conditions we'd have liked to anchor and go hiking or exploring.

Over the years I have been dragged down on by more boats with CQR's, though probably just due to popularity, than by any other anchor. You and I know this is mostly technique, but bad technique, combined with an anchor that needs a good technique, leads to clowns like the one below who dragged a CQR with all chain rode in less than 15 knots right into me. If I had not been on deck and had enough time to get my inflatable in between us it would have been a paint job.

Attempting to re-set after dragging into me with a CQR:

Chuck, why do you now use a Manson?

 

[MoonSailer]

I don't know about the Manson but I do know that my CQR was often difficult to set. Once at Fort McRea on Big Lagoon in FLorida I tried 3 times to set my anchor in winds of about 20 kts. I was totally exhausted . Finally I threw in my large danforth and it held. Then there was the night when both the Danforth and the CQR drug about 1/2 mile. A strong thunderstorm came through in the early morning and there was a big wind shift. The Danforth had a large still alive conch on it's tips but the CQR had no excuse. That is when I bought the Claw and it has always set the first try and reset itself a couple of times when the tide changed and when the wind shifted. I might sell the CQR but I won't use it again. The CQR did set and hold in soft mud. The times that I had trouble was hard sand and grass.

 

[Franklin]

As much as I love the Bulwagga and feel that it will set easier than any other anchor and feel it's holding power is good enough, because of my one problem, I can't make this claim anymore. However, if you look at it with an unbiased opinion and didn't know my story, I don't see how anybody could think any anchor would set more reliable than the Bulwagga in ANY bottom because there are always two points sticking into the ground when it drops from the bow.

For a long time the topic of anchors has been a sore subject to me and I never did understand why it didn't hold that night but after reading that PS test article and reading how the anchors worked in the soft mud, it is much more clear to me why it didn't....it was my two mistakes of anchoring in a bad bottom with no protection from waves and not backing it down so it dug into the hard stuff at the bottom instead of just building a big pile of mud in front of it. I now know it was my fault and not the anchor I used.

It was good to read in the PS test that the Bulwagga's holding power was one of the best in the PS test too.

 

[sailingdog]

One of the stupidest arguments a fellow sailor had with me after seeing how stubborn the Rocna can be to break out was that the Rocna "was costing me a lot of extra time because of how difficult it was to retrieve". I asked him, just how much "time" did having to raise and try and re-set his CQR cost him... I'd rather have the anchor set reliably and be a PITA to retrieve, than one that is a PITA to set and easy to retrieve. Overall, I've found the Rocna to be a great time saver, since it sets far more reliably than any other anchor I've used.

 

[sailingdog]

Franklin—

While the Bulwagga is well regarded in terms of holding power, I still think the stock to fluke attachment point is a weakness and think that the third fluke is a serious fouling risk. Also, the Bulwagga is a royal PITA to stow.

 

[Franklin]

Franklin—

While the Bulwagga is well regarded in terms of holding power, I still think the stock to fluke attachment point is a weakness and think that the third fluke is a serious fouling risk. Also, the Bulwagga is a royal PITA to stow.

The third fluke isn't a fouling risk because the anchor digs in so deep that the only thing sticking out is about 2" of that third fluke...not enough to really foul on anything. It also has an angle that anything would just slip over it.

I also don't think the attachment point is all that weak. It is some very strong thick steal. I bet it would take 20,000 lbs to break it.

I have never heard of either of these happening in the 10 years it's been available and it's widely used in the great lakes because of it's great setting in grass.

Now the stowing I will agree with for some boats. You can't just go to WM and buy a bracket to mount on the bow rail. It will fit very nicely on most bow rollers and I'm sure you can build some kind of bracket to mount it on a rail if you really wanted to and didn't have a bow roller. Now as for stowing it down below, yeah, not very friendly there.