One thing interesting about this test is that the research vessel
used, the R/V Rachel Carson, was designed by Roger Long, a former
contributor to rec.boats.cruising - Roger is still active on some
other boating forums and is presently cruising south for the winter on
his sailboat.

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/magazine/2014/october/the-fine-art-of-anchoring.asp

There are lots of caveats with a test like this, some of which were
noted at the end of the article:

---------------------------------
But there were some things the tests couldn't measure. For example, a
straight-line pull test can't predict how well an anchor will reset
during a wind shift. The tests also can't tell the ultimate holding
power of a wellset anchor that's subject to dynamic loads, such as
when wind and waves act on a boat. Finally, the results hold for just
this one bottom. But there are so many different types of bottoms that
testing in them all would be an overwhelming undertaking.

No anchor test will ever manage to be complete, and despite all the
caveats, the process was a commendable attempt to conduct consistent
and comparable straight-line holding power tests in a specific bottom.
While the testing wasn't perfect and won't begin to satisfy everyone,
it succeeded in adding to the limited body of knowledge that exists
about anchoring and to confirm that anchoring remains as much fine art
as hard science.
-----------------------------------

The biggest issue for me is that all of the testing was done in a soft
mud bottom. That's fine for the Solomons area of Chesapeake Bay but
the most important thing for us is an anchor that sets well in many
different kinds of conditions like sand, grass, loose rock, etc. We
have been using Spade and Rocna anchors for over 10 years, over many
thousands of miles of cruising, and have had excellent results.

On 10/24/2014 10:53 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
One thing interesting about this test is that the research vessel
used, the R/V Rachel Carson, was designed by Roger Long, a former
contributor to rec.boats.cruising - Roger is still active on some
other boating forums and is presently cruising south for the winter on
his sailboat.

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/magazine/2014/october/the-fine-art-of-anchoring.asp

There are lots of caveats with a test like this, some of which were
noted at the end of the article:

---------------------------------
But there were some things the tests couldn't measure. For example, a
straight-line pull test can't predict how well an anchor will reset
during a wind shift. The tests also can't tell the ultimate holding
power of a wellset anchor that's subject to dynamic loads, such as
when wind and waves act on a boat. Finally, the results hold for just
this one bottom. But there are so many different types of bottoms that
testing in them all would be an overwhelming undertaking.

No anchor test will ever manage to be complete, and despite all the
caveats, the process was a commendable attempt to conduct consistent
and comparable straight-line holding power tests in a specific bottom.
While the testing wasn't perfect and won't begin to satisfy everyone,
it succeeded in adding to the limited body of knowledge that exists
about anchoring and to confirm that anchoring remains as much fine art
as hard science.
-----------------------------------

The biggest issue for me is that all of the testing was done in a soft
mud bottom. That's fine for the Solomons area of Chesapeake Bay but
the most important thing for us is an anchor that sets well in many
different kinds of conditions like sand, grass, loose rock, etc. We
have been using Spade and Rocna anchors for over 10 years, over many
thousands of miles of cruising, and have had excellent results.




Interesting article.

I felt a little bit the novice when reading it though. During the eight
years I had the Navigator I used the anchor *once* and on the GB twice.
LOL.

On 10/24/14 12:44 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2014 10:53 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
One thing interesting about this test is that the research vessel
used, the R/V Rachel Carson, was designed by Roger Long, a former
contributor to rec.boats.cruising - Roger is still active on some
other boating forums and is presently cruising south for the winter on
his sailboat.

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/magazine/2014/october/the-fine-art-of-anchoring.asp


There are lots of caveats with a test like this, some of which were
noted at the end of the article:

---------------------------------
But there were some things the tests couldn't measure. For example, a
straight-line pull test can't predict how well an anchor will reset
during a wind shift. The tests also can't tell the ultimate holding
power of a wellset anchor that's subject to dynamic loads, such as
when wind and waves act on a boat. Finally, the results hold for just
this one bottom. But there are so many different types of bottoms that
testing in them all would be an overwhelming undertaking.

No anchor test will ever manage to be complete, and despite all the
caveats, the process was a commendable attempt to conduct consistent
and comparable straight-line holding power tests in a specific bottom.
While the testing wasn't perfect and won't begin to satisfy everyone,
it succeeded in adding to the limited body of knowledge that exists
about anchoring and to confirm that anchoring remains as much fine art
as hard science.
-----------------------------------

The biggest issue for me is that all of the testing was done in a soft
mud bottom. That's fine for the Solomons area of Chesapeake Bay but
the most important thing for us is an anchor that sets well in many
different kinds of conditions like sand, grass, loose rock, etc. We
have been using Spade and Rocna anchors for over 10 years, over many
thousands of miles of cruising, and have had excellent results.




Interesting article.

I felt a little bit the novice when reading it though. During the eight
years I had the Navigator I used the anchor *once* and on the GB twice.
LOL.





I thought it was an hysterically funny post, typical of w'hine for
rec.boats. Mind you, I'm not making fun of the article, simply w'hine's
reposting it here.

--
Of life’s simple pleasures, few are more satisfying than being attacked
by the right-wing trash in rec.boats.

On 10/24/2014 1:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/24/14 12:44 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2014 10:53 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
One thing interesting about this test is that the research vessel
used, the R/V Rachel Carson, was designed by Roger Long, a former
contributor to rec.boats.cruising - Roger is still active on some
other boating forums and is presently cruising south for the winter on
his sailboat.

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/magazine/2014/october/the-fine-art-of-anchoring.asp



There are lots of caveats with a test like this, some of which were
noted at the end of the article:

---------------------------------
But there were some things the tests couldn't measure. For example, a
straight-line pull test can't predict how well an anchor will reset
during a wind shift. The tests also can't tell the ultimate holding
power of a wellset anchor that's subject to dynamic loads, such as
when wind and waves act on a boat. Finally, the results hold for just
this one bottom. But there are so many different types of bottoms that
testing in them all would be an overwhelming undertaking.

No anchor test will ever manage to be complete, and despite all the
caveats, the process was a commendable attempt to conduct consistent
and comparable straight-line holding power tests in a specific bottom.
While the testing wasn't perfect and won't begin to satisfy everyone,
it succeeded in adding to the limited body of knowledge that exists
about anchoring and to confirm that anchoring remains as much fine art
as hard science.
-----------------------------------

The biggest issue for me is that all of the testing was done in a soft
mud bottom. That's fine for the Solomons area of Chesapeake Bay but
the most important thing for us is an anchor that sets well in many
different kinds of conditions like sand, grass, loose rock, etc. We
have been using Spade and Rocna anchors for over 10 years, over many
thousands of miles of cruising, and have had excellent results.




Interesting article.

I felt a little bit the novice when reading it though. During the eight
years I had the Navigator I used the anchor *once* and on the GB twice.
LOL.





I thought it was an hysterically funny post, typical of w'hine for
rec.boats. Mind you, I'm not making fun of the article, simply w'hine's
reposting it here.



Right. How *dare* he submit a boating related post to rec.boats!

On 10/24/14 2:11 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2014 1:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/24/14 12:44 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2014 10:53 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
One thing interesting about this test is that the research vessel
used, the R/V Rachel Carson, was designed by Roger Long, a former
contributor to rec.boats.cruising - Roger is still active on some
other boating forums and is presently cruising south for the winter on
his sailboat.

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/magazine/2014/october/the-fine-art-of-anchoring.asp




There are lots of caveats with a test like this, some of which were
noted at the end of the article:

---------------------------------
But there were some things the tests couldn't measure. For example, a
straight-line pull test can't predict how well an anchor will reset
during a wind shift. The tests also can't tell the ultimate holding
power of a wellset anchor that's subject to dynamic loads, such as
when wind and waves act on a boat. Finally, the results hold for just
this one bottom. But there are so many different types of bottoms that
testing in them all would be an overwhelming undertaking.

No anchor test will ever manage to be complete, and despite all the
caveats, the process was a commendable attempt to conduct consistent
and comparable straight-line holding power tests in a specific bottom.
While the testing wasn't perfect and won't begin to satisfy everyone,
it succeeded in adding to the limited body of knowledge that exists
about anchoring and to confirm that anchoring remains as much fine art
as hard science.
-----------------------------------

The biggest issue for me is that all of the testing was done in a soft
mud bottom. That's fine for the Solomons area of Chesapeake Bay but
the most important thing for us is an anchor that sets well in many
different kinds of conditions like sand, grass, loose rock, etc. We
have been using Spade and Rocna anchors for over 10 years, over many
thousands of miles of cruising, and have had excellent results.




Interesting article.

I felt a little bit the novice when reading it though. During the eight
years I had the Navigator I used the anchor *once* and on the GB twice.
LOL.





I thought it was an hysterically funny post, typical of w'hine for
rec.boats. Mind you, I'm not making fun of the article, simply w'hine's
reposting it here.



Right. How *dare* he submit a boating related post to rec.boats!


Nope...that's not it at all.

--
Of life’s simple pleasures, few are more satisfying than being attacked
by the right-wing trash in rec.boats.

On 10/24/2014 2:13 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/24/14 2:11 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2014 1:52 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/24/14 12:44 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2014 10:53 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
One thing interesting about this test is that the research vessel
used, the R/V Rachel Carson, was designed by Roger Long, a former
contributor to rec.boats.cruising - Roger is still active on some
other boating forums and is presently cruising south for the winter on
his sailboat.

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/magazine/2014/october/the-fine-art-of-anchoring.asp





There are lots of caveats with a test like this, some of which were
noted at the end of the article:

---------------------------------
But there were some things the tests couldn't measure. For example, a
straight-line pull test can't predict how well an anchor will reset
during a wind shift. The tests also can't tell the ultimate holding
power of a wellset anchor that's subject to dynamic loads, such as
when wind and waves act on a boat. Finally, the results hold for just
this one bottom. But there are so many different types of bottoms that
testing in them all would be an overwhelming undertaking.

No anchor test will ever manage to be complete, and despite all the
caveats, the process was a commendable attempt to conduct consistent
and comparable straight-line holding power tests in a specific bottom.
While the testing wasn't perfect and won't begin to satisfy everyone,
it succeeded in adding to the limited body of knowledge that exists
about anchoring and to confirm that anchoring remains as much fine art
as hard science.
-----------------------------------

The biggest issue for me is that all of the testing was done in a soft
mud bottom. That's fine for the Solomons area of Chesapeake Bay but
the most important thing for us is an anchor that sets well in many
different kinds of conditions like sand, grass, loose rock, etc. We
have been using Spade and Rocna anchors for over 10 years, over many
thousands of miles of cruising, and have had excellent results.




Interesting article.

I felt a little bit the novice when reading it though. During the
eight
years I had the Navigator I used the anchor *once* and on the GB twice.
LOL.





I thought it was an hysterically funny post, typical of w'hine for
rec.boats. Mind you, I'm not making fun of the article, simply w'hine's
reposting it here.



Right. How *dare* he submit a boating related post to rec.boats!


Nope...that's not it at all.



Oh. Was it hysterically funny because Wayne has more experience
underway than the rest of us combined?

On Friday, October 24, 2014 1:52:44 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 10/24/14 12:44 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/24/2014 10:53 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
One thing interesting about this test is that the research vessel
used, the R/V Rachel Carson, was designed by Roger Long, a former
contributor to rec.boats.cruising - Roger is still active on some
other boating forums and is presently cruising south for the winter on
his sailboat.

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/magazine/2014/october/the-fine-art-of-anchoring.asp


There are lots of caveats with a test like this, some of which were
noted at the end of the article:

---------------------------------
But there were some things the tests couldn't measure. For example, a
straight-line pull test can't predict how well an anchor will reset
during a wind shift. The tests also can't tell the ultimate holding
power of a wellset anchor that's subject to dynamic loads, such as
when wind and waves act on a boat. Finally, the results hold for just
this one bottom. But there are so many different types of bottoms that
testing in them all would be an overwhelming undertaking.

No anchor test will ever manage to be complete, and despite all the
caveats, the process was a commendable attempt to conduct consistent
and comparable straight-line holding power tests in a specific bottom.
While the testing wasn't perfect and won't begin to satisfy everyone,
it succeeded in adding to the limited body of knowledge that exists
about anchoring and to confirm that anchoring remains as much fine art
as hard science.
-----------------------------------

The biggest issue for me is that all of the testing was done in a soft
mud bottom. That's fine for the Solomons area of Chesapeake Bay but
the most important thing for us is an anchor that sets well in many
different kinds of conditions like sand, grass, loose rock, etc. We
have been using Spade and Rocna anchors for over 10 years, over many
thousands of miles of cruising, and have had excellent results.




Interesting article.

I felt a little bit the novice when reading it though. During the eight
years I had the Navigator I used the anchor *once* and on the GB twice.
LOL.





I thought it was an hysterically funny post, typical of w'hine for
rec.boats. Mind you, I'm not making fun of the article, simply w'hine's
reposting it here.

As funny as you , reposting news clippings of certain people, their families, or their political beliefs??

Can you say HYPOCRITE, ASS****???? I'll bet he cant.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:44:15 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/24/2014 10:53 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
One thing interesting about this test is that the research vessel
used, the R/V Rachel Carson, was designed by Roger Long, a former
contributor to rec.boats.cruising - Roger is still active on some
other boating forums and is presently cruising south for the winter on
his sailboat.

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/magazine/2014/october/the-fine-art-of-anchoring.asp

There are lots of caveats with a test like this, some of which were
noted at the end of the article:

---------------------------------
But there were some things the tests couldn't measure. For example, a
straight-line pull test can't predict how well an anchor will reset
during a wind shift. The tests also can't tell the ultimate holding
power of a wellset anchor that's subject to dynamic loads, such as
when wind and waves act on a boat. Finally, the results hold for just
this one bottom. But there are so many different types of bottoms that
testing in them all would be an overwhelming undertaking.

No anchor test will ever manage to be complete, and despite all the
caveats, the process was a commendable attempt to conduct consistent
and comparable straight-line holding power tests in a specific bottom.
While the testing wasn't perfect and won't begin to satisfy everyone,
it succeeded in adding to the limited body of knowledge that exists
about anchoring and to confirm that anchoring remains as much fine art
as hard science.
-----------------------------------

The biggest issue for me is that all of the testing was done in a soft
mud bottom. That's fine for the Solomons area of Chesapeake Bay but
the most important thing for us is an anchor that sets well in many
different kinds of conditions like sand, grass, loose rock, etc. We
have been using Spade and Rocna anchors for over 10 years, over many
thousands of miles of cruising, and have had excellent results.




Interesting article.

I felt a little bit the novice when reading it though. During the eight
years I had the Navigator I used the anchor *once* and on the GB twice.
LOL.



===

We anchor out a lot, probably 80 to 90% of the time. About the only
time we go looking for overnight dockage is if we need to do laundry
or if we are going to leave the boat unattended for any length of
time. Our preference is to be mostly in the boondocks and that
usually means that anchoring is the only option.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:53:33 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

One thing interesting about this test is that the research vessel
used, the R/V Rachel Carson, was designed by Roger Long, a former
contributor to rec.boats.cruising - Roger is still active on some
other boating forums and is presently cruising south for the winter on
his sailboat.

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/magazine/2014/october/the-fine-art-of-anchoring.asp

There are lots of caveats with a test like this, some of which were
noted at the end of the article:

---------------------------------
But there were some things the tests couldn't measure. For example, a
straight-line pull test can't predict how well an anchor will reset
during a wind shift. The tests also can't tell the ultimate holding
power of a wellset anchor that's subject to dynamic loads, such as
when wind and waves act on a boat. Finally, the results hold for just
this one bottom. But there are so many different types of bottoms that
testing in them all would be an overwhelming undertaking.

No anchor test will ever manage to be complete, and despite all the
caveats, the process was a commendable attempt to conduct consistent
and comparable straight-line holding power tests in a specific bottom.
While the testing wasn't perfect and won't begin to satisfy everyone,
it succeeded in adding to the limited body of knowledge that exists
about anchoring and to confirm that anchoring remains as much fine art
as hard science.
-----------------------------------

The biggest issue for me is that all of the testing was done in a soft
mud bottom. That's fine for the Solomons area of Chesapeake Bay but
the most important thing for us is an anchor that sets well in many
different kinds of conditions like sand, grass, loose rock, etc. We
have been using Spade and Rocna anchors for over 10 years, over many
thousands of miles of cruising, and have had excellent results.


Anchoring has so many variables that any one test run means very
little in the overall art of anchoring. And, it is an art. The
sailor (artist) must have a variety of anchors at his disposal
and know how, when and where to use each one. About the only
thing that makes the sailor proficient is experience, experience
and more experience in all manner of holding grounds.

Expecting one particular anchor to work well or even adequately
in all holding grounds is folly.

Most charts have information on them concerning the composition
of the bottom but, even so, the bottom conditions are only
charted infrequently and not very densely. The art of using
a lead with a cup/wax on the business end is virtually forgotten
and it's the rare sailor seen using one.

I use a variety of anchors among which my 20-pound Danforth
Deepsets are probably the best all-around anchors for holding
strength in one direction. But, using a single Danforth is not
the greatest setup during a wind or tide current shift. It
doesn't always reset properly.

My 20-pound CQR resets more reliably but often has difficulty
setting in the first place in certain types of bottoms.

My 25 pound Herreschoff fisherman anchor is great in rocks
but terrible in soft muddy conditions.

Two 20-pound Danforth Deepsets set out Bahamian style can't
be beat for reliable holding once well set. This system
negates wind and tidal shifts and the anchors don't *break*
out because the pull is always from a small number of degrees
deviation due to the angle of the rodes.

Most of the recent anchors like the Rocna are a gimmick and
not as reliable as the older patent anchors. That people pay
such exorbitant prices for these dubious anchors is folly.

--
Sir Gregory

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 10:05:37 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

Most of the recent anchors like the Rocna are a gimmick and
not as reliable as the older patent anchors. That people pay
such exorbitant prices for these dubious anchors is folly.

===

I disagree but your mileage may vary. Over the last 45 years we have
tried almost every type of anchor known to mankind, and in a lot of
different boats and conditions. After reading a lot of positive
reviews we purchased a 45 lb Spade for our last boat, and it was just
an incredibly reliable anchor that almost always set on the first try
and never, ever dragged or broke out no matter what happened.

Remembering that success, we purchased a 120 pound Spade for our
present boat, a high windage trawler weighing 70,000 pounds. It was
a great anchor also, but the weight was almost too much for our
windlass to handle under some conditions. When we decided to replace
it with something lighter, Spade anchors had become difficult to find
and Glenn Ashmore was no longer in the business of importing them. The
closest thing we could find was a 90 pound Rocna, and after 3 full
seasons with that, it has also performed very well although sometimes
slightly slower to set than the big Spade. In my opinion both the
Rocna and Spade are excellent anchors and well worth the money, cheap
insurance I believe.