I can't find the original post which led me to this site. I found it
very interesting:

http://www.rocna.com/press/press_0612_wm_ym_testing.pdf

It discusses a very thorough test of many different anchors in several
different conditions, in very controlled circumstances. Significant
to our recent "discussions" :{)) they took core samples. I think
you'd agree that those were markedly more informative than just taking
something off the top like the local clip joint :{))

Back to our conversation, though, do you bend on each anchor before
launch, or do you set one for the area you already know, and leave it
attached? And, if like in the Chessie, what do you do when the bottom
conditions change repeatedly (the alluvial area was where we were
lots, but the last couple of hooks has been hard, and from what I
could see, the intervening ones were sand, e.g.)? No, I've never been
clamming, not enjoying eraser bits of any sort in my meals, but I do
know what you mean about getting out of that stuff...

This article has me rethinking my anchor management. Adding another
will be a storage challenge; only the fortress (which is knocked down,
in a bag, and fits nicely in the lazarette) and the danforths lend
themselves to stowage on the rail(s) - their currrent location(s).
However, when I lost my 65# CQR (see "Anchor's Away" - a report of a
sea trial last year) and was considering what to do for the
replacement, the Rocna, not only very expensive but at the entire
extent of the USA apart, a very high shipping charge, as well, and the
Spade, with the 120 being really the appropriate one for the boat,
being even worse, I eventually went to a like, but heavier, CQR.

These tests are more impressive to me than the ones held by Practical
Sailor, and while I recognize the self-serving nature of the stuff at
the end, I can't fault it. Like Spade, I suspect that surface area is
far more important than weight in determining the effective holding of
any anchor, and so, the differing weights are not as important in
these tests. However, the failure of some of the usually highly rated
anchors was significant to me...

Still thinking, but what the heck - it's only money. What to do with
one of the ones removed will be the challenge if I proceed...

L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog and/or
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog

"You are never given a wish without also being given the power to
make it come true. You may have to work for it however."
(and)
"There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its
hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts."
(Richard Bach, in The Reluctant Messiah)

Skip Gundlach wrote:

Still thinking, but what the heck - it's only money. What to do with
one of the ones removed will be the challenge if I proceed...

Craigslist?

Stephen

On Oct 31, 6:46 am, Skip Gundlach wrote:
I can't find the original post which led me to this site. I found it
very interesting:

http://www.rocna.com/press/press_0612_wm_ym_testing.pdf


Good morning SKip:

Thanks for the link. Ive read a few comments about the Rocna in the
last year but put that learning low on my list. Until this
morning............ interesting information! I want to give it a try.


It discusses a very thorough test of many different anchors in several
different conditions, in very controlled circumstances. Significant
to our recent "discussions" :{)) they took core samples. I think
you'd agree that those were markedly more informative than just taking
something off the top like the local clip joint :{))


Agreed, and that is my biggest gripe.... people pulling comments out
their ass with zero imperical support. DOnt get me wrong, personal
experince is very useful information. But......... like all opinions
every body has one. That is what I enjoy about Hinz (note the no T)


Back to our conversation, though, do you bend on each anchor before
launch, or do you set one for the area you already know, and leave it
attached?

If crossing a bar I have my anchor ready to depoy immediatly. I
typically sail alone, and dont want to end up on the jetty if
something goes wrong.

If day sailing I keep it ready to drop.

When uner way offshore for more that 24 hours I stow the anchor. I
dont like stuff on deck that might break loose in snoty weather.



These last few years ive been in the PNW. I lke to do things easy so I
use what works reasonbly given the bottom. Around here that is 1) mud/
sand estuary with fast tide flow, 2) columbia river mud, 3) or upper
columbia river which is mud or mud over basalt rock because of the up
stream dam pool siltation.

In the estuary if Im going to stay for a few days I use a Bahemian
style set up. using mud/sand anchors (Fortress FX). when the tide
changes it can really start to flow..... 3-5 k+ . Dont want to risk
breaking out every 6 hours. (tide change)

In the upper Columbia I use a CQR and all chain. NOt uncommon to set
on 3-4' mud and then find basalt. (Oregon's most valuable mineral) The
CQR does okay hooking in the rock. ONce I got fowled on an old car.
But there are lots of "marinas" to use on the upper river. Usually I
just tie up to an old grain barge. I only had one time when a tug
skipper give me blast wanting pick up the barge.!!!!! Oregon also
provides free docks along the river.


And, if like in the Chessie, what do you do when the bottom
conditions change repeatedly (the alluvial area was where we were
lots, but the last couple of hooks has been hard, and from what I
could see, the intervening ones were sand, e.g.)?

This is where it is essential to know how to "read the river" Look at
the chart see what that says for bottom type. But thatstoo general and
usual 50 years old. Lots can happen in 50 years. For example....
FLOODS! Look for drainage channels that means speed and harder
bottoms. as yuou said before slow water builds deltas.... ie soft mud/
silt Then look look at the suround land forms. Water, like air, flows
in some rather predictable ways. When I wa 3-10 years old I use to
build harbors/docks/jetties on the river bank of the Columbia. I didnt
know it at the time but that little wood boat and my soup spoon taught
me a lot about how jetteys, bays, currents, waves (provide by passing
boats) rip-rap, finger and wing dykes effect water flow.

I guess what im saying SKip is, go clamming..... get a bottle of wine
and sit on the bank by yourself get drunk and watch the water durring
a tide excahnge or two. Read some books and get drunk again while
watching the water go by. Soon the secrects will be reveald..... Who
knows, you might LOOK at a place you may park that boat and think,
"humm a break water there, current goes that way, might get some
silting in that area.... "I bet there might be a 3 foot hump about
there."


I've never been
clamming, not enjoying eraser bits of any sort in my meals, but I do
know what you mean about getting out of that stuff...

the great thing about clams and oysters is that they come with "geen
stuffing"



This article has me rethinking my anchor management.


Its not the anchor...................... its the bottom! Dont put the
cart in ront of the horse. Listen to the bottom and it will tell you
what type of anchor to use.

Oh, RE the belt problme...... more of the same is going to get you
more of the same. How often do you change the belts on your car?????
Why should it be any diffrent on your boat?

Bob

On 2007-10-31 10:46:40 -0400, Skip Gundlach said:

Do you bend on each anchor before launch, or do you set one for the
area you already know, and leave it attached? And, if like in the
Chessie, what do you do when the bottom conditions change repeatedly
(the alluvial area was where we were lots, but the last couple of hooks
has been hard, and from what I could see, the intervening ones were
sand, e.g.)

We always have the "general purpose" anchor -- for the area -- bent on
for instant deployment. Some times, some anchor must go down *now*.

If we could mount two at the same time, the other would be quite a bit
different and also ready to drop if the first was insufficient. The
standard configuration used to be a plow and a claw, but there are
better anchors than both these days.

One thing that maximizes success is to get *IN* to the anchorage early
and test unfamiliar ones with a hand set, letting it set a bit by
itself, then a moderate back-down. Rushing the set is a bad idea.

Most protected Bay anchorages have a lovely mud bottom, but we have
moved a couple of times when we found a bottom we couldn't get a good
grip on. 50' can make the difference.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:46:40 -0000, Skip Gundlach
wrote:

the Rocna, not only very expensive but at the entire
extent of the USA apart, a very high shipping charge, as well, and the
Spade, with the 120 being really the appropriate one for the boat,
being even worse

I have a 120 lb Spade and like it a lot. It was expensive but I view
it as cheap insurance. It's a lot to carry on the bow of a sailboat
however, but if you've already got a full shot of chain, what the
heck.

Its not theanchor...................... its the bottom! Dont put the
cart in ront of the horse. Listen to the bottom and it will tell you
what type ofanchorto use.

This old lore of choosing the anchor by the bottom type is very out
dated. Anchors should work in all bottoms, within reason, and if they
don't there's something wrong with them. (Exceptions naturally are
solid rock or coral, or the same with an impossibly thin layer of sand/
mud over the top. There you're just depending on dead weight - if you
need to anchor securely, go somewhere else.)

MBM, in their own write-up of the YM testing linked to above, wrote in
their conclusion:

"The new generation of roll-bar type anchors were a revelation. You
don't see many of these stowed on bow-rollers in the UK, but they were
truly impressive performers - especially the New Zealand-made Rocna...
They showed extreme holding power and versatility, giving the
established Spade and Fortress a run for their money. The anchors that
performed best in our tests were the ones that self orientated
themselves on the seabed with an optimum penetrating angle. So are new
designs the way to go? It seems we are getting closer to an anchor
that will cope with all types of seabeds, a universal all-rounder. So
the days of the long-distance boater who carries two or three
different anchors to cope with a variety of conditions may well soon
be numbered."

This is very perceptive, although the testers did not test in a huge
variety of seabeds (only three) so they don't know how right they are!

The Rocna, and to some degree the Spade, are superb general purpose
anchors, equally as good as any "specialist" anchor in any seabed and
superior in most. It is not necessary to carry two or three specialist
types, each only good for one type of bottom, maybe to never be used.
This approach stems simply from the fundamental flaws of the old
types, with each anchor in such a collection only present in order to
address the flaws of the others.

In the data from SAIL, the "max before releasing" figures of the Rocna
are almost unbelievably higher than the remainder of the field. The
Spade, to its credit, is second. Refer:
http://www.rocna.com/distributable/r...nd-testing.pdf

The reason for this is NOT that the competing anchors ALWAYS perform
that much worse than the Rocna. Rather, it is a function of
consistency. The data is the average of all pull tests, and while some
of the others may have performed quite well, recording competitive
"peaks", they were not reliable enough to perform to the same high
average on all occasions. When you're anchoring in different sea-bed
types, and you don't always know the bottom, and you just need the
anchor to set dependably - then this consistency of performance is the
most critical characteristic.

On Nov 1, 3:46 am, Skip Gundlach wrote:
This article has me rethinking my anchor management. Adding another
will be a storage challenge; only the fortress (which is knocked down,
in a bag, and fits nicely in the lazarette) and the danforths lend
themselves to stowage on the rail(s) - their currrent location(s).
However, when I lost my 65# CQR (see "Anchor's Away" - a report of a
sea trial last year) and was considering what to do for the
replacement, the Rocna, not only very expensive but at the entire
extent of the USA apart, a very high shipping charge, as well, and the
Spade, with the 120 being really the appropriate one for the boat,
being even worse, I eventually went to a like, but heavier, CQR.

I'm not sure I read this right Skip, the Rocna is definitely cheaper
than a CQR on a weight-for-weight basis, and far far better value on a
performance for $ basis.

The CQR 60lb from West Marine online at the moment is: "Sale $1,075.00
USD (Save $320.00 USD)"
The Rocna 25 (55lb) from West is $800.00 USD, the 33 (73lb) is $900.00
USD, and even the 15 or 20 Kg could be expected to out-perform the
60lb (27Kg) plow...

A lot of pricing comparisons these days inevitably come from looking
at cheap knock-offs, which flood the market from both domestic and
Asian manufacturers. It's a lowest common denominator thing. The
genuine CQR, genuine Bruce, Spade, and Rocna are fairly equal in one
sense: quality of build - and comparisons of value need to be
undertaken like-for-like. Their prices generally reflect the true cost
of a decent anchor. There are lots of things from a construction and
production point of view that could be done to make the Rocna cheaper,
but then it wouldn't be top quality!

If it's cheaper, it's cheaper for a reason... How much is your boat
worth?

On Nov 1, 8:04 pm, " wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:46 am, Skip Gundlach wrote:

This article has me rethinking my anchor management. Adding another
will be a storage challenge; only the fortress (which is knocked down,
in a bag, and fits nicely in the lazarette) and the danforths lend
themselves to stowage on the rail(s) - their currrent location(s).
However, when I lost my 65# CQR (see "Anchor's Away" - a report of a
sea trial last year) and was considering what to do for the
replacement, the Rocna, not only very expensive but at the entire
extent of the USA apart, a very high shipping charge, as well, and the
Spade, with the 120 being really the appropriate one for the boat,
being even worse, I eventually went to a like, but heavier, CQR.

I'm not sure I read this right Skip, the Rocna is definitely cheaper
than a CQR on a weight-for-weight basis, and far far better value on a
performance for $ basis.

The CQR 60lb from West Marine online at the moment is: "Sale $1,075.00
USD (Save $320.00 USD)"
The Rocna 25 (55lb) from West is $800.00 USD, the 33 (73lb) is $900.00
USD, and even the 15 or 20 Kg could be expected to out-perform the
60lb (27Kg) plow...

A lot of pricing comparisons these days inevitably come from looking
at cheap knock-offs, which flood the market from both domestic and
Asian manufacturers. It's a lowest common denominator thing. The
genuine CQR, genuine Bruce, Spade, and Rocna are fairly equal in one
sense: quality of build - and comparisons of value need to be
undertaken like-for-like. Their prices generally reflect the true cost
of a decent anchor. There are lots of things from a construction and
production point of view that could be done to make the Rocna cheaper,
but then it wouldn't be top quality!

If it's cheaper, it's cheaper for a reason... How much is your boat
worth?


Thanks, Craig, for the commentary.

I had compared it to a Delta, the first "new" anchor I bought. I was
successful in buying my replacement 75# CQR for 375 - the 65 I lost I
paid 300 for. No, I didn't buy them at West..

I actively considered the Rocna and Spade - and didn't buy the Spade
because I'd have had to go to the 120 (not pounds, surface area), and
I couldn't afford it..

I don't dispute the cost nor the value. Just my hemorrhaging
pocketbook. If you'll ship me an equivalent to a Delta or CQR in the
60-75 (the ones on the bow, now) or so pound range for $500 (or, could
I buy it at West on my Port Card for that?), I'd mount it.

If you followed the thread where Bob was trying to eat my lunch, my
40k# boat with all that windage to boot, likely would need more than
the usually recommended anchors in a 45' hull. It's why I over sized
the Delta, and double over sized the CQR secondary. What would be the
recommended Rocna anchor?

Thanks...

L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog and/or
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog

"You are never given a wish without also being given the power to
make it come true. You may have to work for it however."
(and)
"There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its
hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts."
(Richard Bach, in The Reluctant Messiah)

On Nov 1, 8:04 pm, " wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:46 am, Skip Gundlach wrote:

This article has me rethinking my anchor management. Adding another
will be a storage challenge; only the fortress (which is knocked down,
in a bag, and fits nicely in the lazarette) and the danforths lend
themselves to stowage on the rail(s) - their currrent location(s).
However, when I lost my 65# CQR (see "Anchor's Away" - a report of a
sea trial last year) and was considering what to do for the
replacement, the Rocna, not only very expensive but at the entire
extent of the USA apart, a very high shipping charge, as well, and the
Spade, with the 120 being really the appropriate one for the boat,
being even worse, I eventually went to a like, but heavier, CQR.

I'm not sure I read this right Skip, the Rocna is definitely cheaper
than a CQR on a weight-for-weight basis, and far far better value on a
performance for $ basis.

The CQR 60lb from West Marine online at the moment is: "Sale $1,075.00
USD (Save $320.00 USD)"
The Rocna 25 (55lb) from West is $800.00 USD, the 33 (73lb) is $900.00
USD, and even the 15 or 20 Kg could be expected to out-perform the
60lb (27Kg) plow...

A lot of pricing comparisons these days inevitably come from looking
at cheap knock-offs, which flood the market from both domestic and
Asian manufacturers. It's a lowest common denominator thing. The
genuine CQR, genuine Bruce, Spade, and Rocna are fairly equal in one
sense: quality of build - and comparisons of value need to be
undertaken like-for-like. Their prices generally reflect the true cost
of a decent anchor. There are lots of things from a construction and
production point of view that could be done to make the Rocna cheaper,
but then it wouldn't be top quality!

If it's cheaper, it's cheaper for a reason... How much is your boat
worth?


Thanks, Craig, for the commentary.

I had compared it to a Delta, the first "new" anchor I bought. I was
successful in buying my replacement 75# CQR for 375 - the 65 I lost I
paid 300 for. No, I didn't buy them at West..

I actively considered the Rocna and Spade - and didn't buy the Spade
because I'd have had to go to the 120 (not pounds, surface area), and
I couldn't afford it..

I don't dispute the cost nor the value. Just my hemorrhaging
pocketbook. If you'll ship me an equivalent to a Delta or CQR in the
60-75 (the ones on the bow, now) or so pound range for $500 (or, could
I buy it at West on my Port Card for that?), I'd mount it.

If you followed the thread where Bob was trying to eat my lunch, my
40k# boat with all that windage to boot, likely would need more than
the usually recommended anchors in a 45' hull. It's why I over sized
the Delta, and double over sized the CQR secondary. What would be the
recommended Rocna anchor?

Thanks...

L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
See our galleries at www.justpickone.org/skip/gallery !
Follow us at http://groups.google.com/group/flyingpiglog and/or
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheFlyingPigLog

"You are never given a wish without also being given the power to
make it come true. You may have to work for it however."
(and)
"There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its
hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts."
(Richard Bach, in The Reluctant Messiah)

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:17:08 -0000, Skip Gundlach
wrote:

I don't dispute the cost nor the value. Just my hemorrhaging
pocketbook.

I can relate to that.

On the other hand a good anchor is really cheap insurance, and worth a
lot in peace of mind. You and Lydia are anchoring out much of the
time and saving a great deal in marina dockage as a benefit. On the
other hand you've already been hit with a couple of night time
squalls, and I can guarantee that you'll see more. It's part of the
game, happens all the time. Think about how much it will cost if you
drag anchor and do serious damage to your boat, or worse yet, do
serious damage to someone elses boat. If you damage another boat in
some circumstances, you could lose the use of your own while the
litiation proceeds.

My advice, FWIW, is to get the best and biggest anchor that you can
handle. You'll never regret it, especially when that wind is howling
outside and your home is swinging on the end of a small piece of
metal.