On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:47:24 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

Another problem is when they get set deeply in the Chesapeake mud. Any
time we got hit by solid wind, much less a squall, it could take a very
long time to get it out in the morning.

I know the feeling but it's actually a good problem to have.

On Nov 3, 6:13 am, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:47:24 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:
Another problem is when they get set deeply in the Chesapeake mud. Any
time we got hit by solid wind, much less a squall, it could take a very
long time to get it out in the morning.


I know the feeling but it's actually a good problem to have.

Sounds like the kinda problem Skip needs.
Bob

On 2007-11-03 10:13:50 -0400, Wayne.B said:

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:47:24 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

Another problem is when they get set deeply in the Chesapeake mud. Any
time we got hit by solid wind, much less a squall, it could take a very
long time to get it out in the morning.

I know the feeling but it's actually a good problem to have.

I used to think so, or more properly I was worried that the Spade came
out too easily, but though both anchors have about the same area and
"dive" about the same depth (sometimes several feet into the mud), it
seems the Spade rotates around it's "tail" and presents a smaller area
as it's being pulled up. Though I haven't done side-by-side tests, I
believe the Spade's sharp point penetrates faster and easier, so it's
usually deeper than the Danforth would be.

--
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 Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:49:50 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

I
believe the Spade's sharp point penetrates faster and easier, so it's
usually deeper than the Danforth would be.

Probably so, ours usually comes up with a huge mud ball on it,
probably weighing more than the anchor itself. We've got a 1 hp
generator driven high pressure wash down pump and it still takes
several minutes to clean the anchor off when it has been well dug in.

On Nov 2, 5:50 am, Bob wrote:
Hi All:

All the talk about theRocnaanchor started me reading and looking.
There are some very compelling data theRocnasets fast and holds
well. However, Ive noticed that all the tests Ive seen were all
similar sand type bottoms. Here is my question:

If anchoring in sand bottoms (hard, loose, sand/mud) why would I chose
theRocnainstead of an anchor design specifically for such
conditions; Fortress FX series. In other words, Fortress FX orRocna?
Which holds best in sand or mud bottoms?

Or is the Rocnca's appeal that it holds adequately in a variety of
bottoms? Say, the better crescent wrench (adjustable spanner for you
Limeys).

bob

Danforth types are not general purpose anchors and have no place as
the primary type on any larger boat. They hold well in one direction,
if well set, but suffer from a number of other problems.

Their advantages, particularly the Fortress, are in stowability and a
fairly high performance-to-weight ratio.