Anchor size, big is better?

[Marin]

Eric-- Agree with your previous post. However our Bruce (and the Bruces of too many boating friends and acquaintances) dragged under what I consider lightish winds--- 20 to 30 knots. In one case a friend dragged all the way from Saddlebag Island north of Anacortes across the channel to the cliffs of eastern Guemes Island. They just happened to wake up in time. The winds at the time he said were less than 20 knots.

So it was not a matter of us wanting a super-holding anchor for super-strong winds, it was a matter of us wanting an anchor that would hold reliably in average winds. Our small Bruce convincingly proved one too many times that it was not dependably capable of this.

 

[rwidman]

Anchoring a boat is as much of an art as it is a science. Even the best anchor will drag if not set properly, too short a scope, or it's too small for the boat.

The problem I have with heavy anchors is, they are hard to throw very far!

 

[Moonstruck]

Just curious, Rex. If a Rocna anchor lands on its back in soft mud, how does the hoop help it to turn to proper position? For that matter I have a Delta. Is it subject to the same scenario?

So far I have only been in one place that my Delta would not set. That was in thin sand over bedrock. The point would catch then when tension was let off it would lay over on its side. I took a looky box out in the dinghy then dove it to have a look. Had to move to an area with a softer bottom.

Eric, Delfin, and Marin are all well versed in anchoring. Me not so much. I have learned from them all. Thanks for your input. It is very interesting and educational.

I would love to have the bling of a stainless steel Sarca Excell on the bow of my boat.

 

[Marin]

Don--- The rollbar and balance of the anchor is such that if it lands on its back it immediately rolls onto one side or the other. That's the whole reason behind the rollbar--- the anchor always ends up on its side. If it lands vertically head down, sitting on the rollbar hoop, the weight of the chain alone will immediately pull it over at which point the relationship of the fluke to the rollbar will ensure it ends up on its side.

It could conceivably end up sitting square on the bottom of its fluke, but in this position the Rocna (don't know about the Sarca) is very unstable with its heavy shank angled up sharply into the "air" and it will flop over onto its side the moment any pull is exerted on it.

If it landed upside down in very oozy mud I suspect the large angle between the shank and the fluke (see photo) would still hold the fluke up in a very unstable position and the unsupported weight aided by the rollbar would cause the anchor to flop over onto its side. If the mud was so soupy that the anchor simply sank completely into it I doubt any kind of anchor short of a monster great heavy one or an engine block would work very well.

The whole deal with these anchors is not to get them to lie on the bottom with the fluke pointing down at the bottom as it is when sitting on the pulpit of our boat in the photo, but to get them to lie on their side. Which side doesn't matter. Then when you start pulling on the end of the shank to set it, the leverage created pivots the fluke sideways down into the bottom like a knife blade. Once the fluke has sliced into the bottom the geometry of the anchor forces it to turn and present the full width of the fluke to resist the pull of the rode.

There are videos on the web that do a good job of showing how the rollbar anchor design works. While there are design differences between the Rocna, Sarca, Manson, and Bugel that the manufacturers/designers claim make theirs better than the others, the basic principle of operation is the same for all of them.

 

[markpierce]

And yet ships keep on using old-fashioned anchors looking quite small relative to the ship's size.

(Notice state flag is on the port spreader.)

 

[Nomad Willy]

Some yachts use them too.

 

[Rex]

Bigger is better

Eric , Yogurt AY,


Well I suppose whatever I say you will struggle with my comments Re anchor design, your comment yogurt, unfortunately here in Australia yogurt is a good way of describing this oozy mud, Port Phillip bay and Westernport are constantly dredged of this ooze to keep the commercial channels open, there are many signs warning boaters not to try and walk out at low tide if their boat should peter out, if you jump out in the shallow water you go straight down to you groin.


Doesn’t matter what anchor design you deploy in this goop, if you drop it upside down it will sink upside down, no point using a sand anchor as you will never retrieve it, the super Sarca secondary fluke is not there just for looks, this is the only design that will right itself in this ( YOGURT) the secondary fluke when dragged will push the mud in front of it raising the Sarca as it goes until its centrifugal force created by the hoop and its weight can right it.


You know there is a problem with me interacting with your conversations, it is this, we cover a diverse and many different sets of problems than just you the yachters, meaning we deal with the trailer bot industry, commercial industry as well, believe it or not you have different needs when anchoring.


For instance the Bruce or a claw upside down, many of you would never experience this and argue my comments for this reason, an example, take a trailer bowtie adventuring out in 30 knts of wind to a spot where this Yogurt is, it is impossible to lay an anchor in these conditions, the anchor ending upside down has the same chance of flipping a coin, why do this, there is only a small window to catch these fish before they move out and the yogurt, because it has fresh floating weed growing this ooze is the ideal place for the big snapper to spawn.


Yachters will probably never anchor in this goop or adventure out in these conditions, most would be on moorings or safely anchored, the trawlers that snap of side flukes on the Bruce’s, Claws, Cqr’s that come up leaving the crown and fluke behind, again Yachters would rarely experience this, I was surprised to see the large claw or Bruce that Eric posted with the bent fluke, I have only ever seen them snapped off. Evidenced to my statement, they do get trapped under rocks and can snap of a fluke when retrieved.


So when we decide to take on a new anchor concept we will put all designs through situations that may never exist, if we find what we think could be a problem when dealing with all of the industries needs we try and correct it in the new design, an anchor design takes us years, there is way too much to go into with the research we have done.


Before I am finished boring you I just have to make a statement, nothing less than five to one overnight regardless of anchor design or one day you may suffer the consequences, sorry Eric, if you want your kite to fly higher, give it more rope, if you want your anchor to dig deeper give it more rope.
Do we have the perfect anchor, there is no perfect anchor, there are only better anchors, as far as I am concerned our designs are as good as if not better than the world has to offer, AND YES BIGGER IS BETTER.


Regards.
Rex.


CEO of Anchor Right Australia.

 

[Rex]

Bigger is better

Hi Moonstruck.

Me commenting on the anchor you have just asked, cannot go there as it is modern generation, all I can say is the origional Sarca anchor (concave version) if you were able to drag directally over it in the yogurt, certainly that is where it would stay, having said that our observation during develpment, dragging directally over your anchor the chain will rarley pull central, 99.9 percent of the time pulling the anchor sideways.

Keeping in mind that very early model had no secondary fluke, again would this happen to you, I would doubt it as you are not a trailor boat fisherman braving all weather conditions and just throwing his anchor out.

Second you would not be venturing of into extremely shallow water chasing fish.

The stainless steel Excel even though look fantastic they will never be as strong as the bisplate shank gal one, we go one step further than most with our stainless anchors as we dont use 316 stainless in the shanks, we go to 2205 stainless which is about fifty percent stronger than 316, as we are certified Super High Holding Power anchors the extra strength is needed to cope with the proof load tests.

Downside with stainless, lock it up or you will lose it, bend it then bin it unless you want to replace the shank, if you straighten the shank then work hardening will occur, next time you bend it it will snap, and the most important part, you can buy 3 Galvanized Excels for the price of one stainless Excel.

Regards Rex.

CEO of Anchorright Australia.

 

[Andy G]

Well for mine,I would like to say thanks Rex for your input. I was particularly impressed by the way you put your case and explained your anchor designs, without trying to run down the opposition.

 

[Peter B]

Actually, while you are there Rex, you might be able to help settle a concern Marin still has - the only outstanding concern he has re the Sarca I think, (if we stay away from the slotted shank, of course), and that is this issue....

"So it's a totally armchair-theory bias. I understand the principle behind the CQR but an anchor that is streamlined in the direction of pull is a design looking for a reason to fail to my way of thinking."

My read on it is if you look at a convex fluke from the front or side, then imagine it traveling through any substance - air even - Marin's element actually, as he flies, (in a plane of course). To me the net effect is for it to follow a forward and downward direction, and not pull out. After all, that is how a plow works is it not..? The resemblance of so many anchor flukes to a plow is not coincidental. That is how the plow share stays dug in and digs the furrow, yet at the same time leaving the soil behind it. In the case of an anchor, the net effect surely is to dig in, and keep traveling in the direction of pull, certainly, but only until it has dug deep enough to arrest further forward movement. The next benefit, is that when retrieved that same shape sheds the bottom, and the same feature prevents the fluke from filling with a sticky substrate and impeding re-setting with change of direction of pull.
Is that description correct Rex? I would hate to put anyone wrong, but it fits with the actual experience.

Delfin, I absolutely agree re the point of not backing strongly into an anchor to set it. Letting it settle in a bit then engage just with the tug of the current or wind usually does suffice - certainly does with the Sarcas. The only exception I suspect is the CQR with that hinged shank, which if just left to its own devices while the boat drifts back is to often just bounce along the bottom on its side and not dig in and set. Once it does dig in, it holds well, but I have one fail too often with a weedy or firm bottom to put up with it.

 

[Moonstruck]

OK, PeterB, AndyG, and Rex have almost convinced me. When there is a model of the galvanized (ugh) Sarca Escell that will work in the northern hemisphere, I will take a hard look at it.

 

[Rex]

Bigger is better

Hi Peter.

Once again you should not confuse yourself with the Excel as a plough concept,like the Sarca is to a concave design, again the Excel is a very differnt concept to that of a plough--Delta excetra, yes the Excel will screw 90 to 120 degress and stay well beded,the excel is one of the cleanest anchors you will retrieve.

The Excel has single plain rear flukes that do not plough,it has a turned down toe similar to the Sarca, the toe and shank is of bisplate,the ballast in the toe is poured in moulten cast capted at the rear and hot diped gavanized,the bisplate shank is not but welded, but goes right through the fluke and is welded underside as well as on top.

The name Excel works similar to the slots in the Sarca, relieves compression when burying, it does this with water being sucked through the fluke plate creating a slide effect so that the substrate lock up-holding power is created from extreme compression when it reaches the rear single plain fluke, the substrate is not ploughed away but guided inward and over to centre of the rear flukes driving the Excel deeper for maximum hold.

From the toe to the rear single plain flukes are cutting edges that really help this rapid penetration, best seen on our videos, very big improvment in weed, any forces will contiually bury the excel until suffiecient holding power is achieved.

Arm chair observations, come on Pete I not going to get into that, I will tell you something though, this forum the critics, the supporters, you have all been an enourmous help to me as in helping me to understand the many ways of just how ones product can be judged, but like I said we are dealing with three differnt sections of the market, differnt needs and I think for any one developing an anchor recognizing the varyations only helps to produce a better product.

Any way thank you all for your challenges re our anchor designs I have learnt a lot.

If you are wanting more real life trials with Excel then check out this link, as independant as you will get and the best anchor test available, (how it works for the customer), http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/sarca-excel-68946-8.html dont know if the moderators will allow this link, see what happens.

Regards Rex.

CEO of Anchor Right Australia.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Rex I read some of the posts on your link. Most of the raving reviews there can be mustered for most any product. So far our relationship (you and the forum) has been educational and just friendly. I'm probably the most outspoken person regarding commercialism on the forum here and even to me your link seems too much "hawk'in your wares" but I'd still like to go back to your link see if there is something to learn between the gushing raves and I think there will be. So I hope the mods leave it for a day or two ... but no more.

I too was amazed that the Claws were as malleable as evidenced by my observations in Craig Alaska. I did see some broken off flukes too and assume the broken shank Claws were not on the boats for obvious reasons. And these fishermen have boats that resemble tug boats and can exert tremendous forces on an anchor rode. Dragger from XYZ wanted me to go and find a big fishboat to try and pull out a well set XYZ to prove the anchor's holding power. I thought it was too much to ask of a fisherman so never did do it. May have been interesting.

Commercialism aside your presence here has been very positive and perhaps a bit fun too. And if I do buy another new anchor it will be your SARCA, not the Excell as I think the SARCA has better short scope performance.

 

[OFB]

Rex

5 to 1 is a blanket statement that unfortunatly dont fit where I cruise most of the time. Yet I sleep well at night. I understand you have a great amount of experience creating anchors. You provide great information in your posts. But I have a ton of experience anchoring with much less "scope". I am not advising any one that 3 to 1 is safe for most occasions, yet it sure can be using some technique's and equipment.

Anchors and anchoring = lots of variables.

"nothing less than five to one overnight regardless of anchor design or one day you may suffer the consequences,"

 

[Nomad Willy]

And to add to OFBs post the biggest variable in anchoring is NOT scope, the anchor or even the operator .... it's the bottom. All the things that happen or don't happen to us while anchoring is most dependent on what the bottom is like. High holding power bottom is where it's at so perhaps our anchoring success at 3-1 is the result of having good firm mud most everywhere we anchor. I mirror OFBs post entirely. And I can add that OFBs anchor is NOT a "next generation" anchor.

 

[Marin]

That is how the plow share stays dug in and digs the furrow, yet at the same time leaving the soil behind it.

Right, and therein lies the rub. Plows are designed to move through the soil, pick it up, and move it to the side. If they didn't work that way, the horse would stop.

Now I certainly understand the theory behind the CQR's upside down, dual plow design that is supposed to dig itself down until it can't move any more. And, knowing a number of very experienced boaters, mostly sailors, who have CQRs and have used them for decades with "pretty good" success (their words), I know it is an anchor that has earned a good reputation.

But..... in all the reading I have done over the last 14 years we've been in this kind of boating--- magazines, the T&T list, the GB forum, this forum, internet reviews, etc.---- there is one anchor that seems to collect more complaints about being "problematical" and that is the CQR.

When I asked a good friend in our club who has decades of sailing experience in this area from Bellingham and the San Juans all the way up to the north end of Vancouver Island and who anchors out virtually always why the CQR was so popular, particularly among the sailboat crowd, he thought for a moment and then said, "Because it was the first anchor design that stowed well on a pulpit or bow. That's why I bought one."

As I said we've never had one, I've never used one, I have absolutely zero experience with it. My bias is based solely on the appearance of the anchor and what I've read or been told. Again, it may be a matter of "if you have a large enough one it works great" like the Bruce/claw. But I'm only interested in anchors that can be accommodated on our boat which means relatively light and small.

If someone put a Bruce and a CQR in the sizes our boat uses in front of me and held a gun to my head and said I had to pick one to use or else, I would pick the Bruce.

 

[Nomad Willy]

I,da never thunk I'd hear those words Marin.

"I would pick the Bruce"

 

[jeffnick]

~~~~~But..... in all the reading I have done over the last 14 years we've been in this kind of boating--- magazines, the T&T list, the GB forum, this forum, internet reviews, etc.---- there is one anchor that seems to collect more complaints about being "problematical" and that is the CQR.~~~~~

Seems to me if everyone was using Danforths they'd be complaining about Danforths instead of their plows? Those complaints could be a testament to their popularity.

We spent over 1,000 nights on the hook...over 75% of them on top of a genuine hinged CQR. It didn't always set but when it did it held. So chalk me up as one of the complainers?

 

[markpierce]

If someone put a Bruce and a CQR in the sizes our boat uses in front of me and held a gun to my head and said I had to pick one to use or else, I would pick the Bruce.

There's at least one 40-something-foot sailboat on K dock which has both a Bruce and a CQR on its bow. Haven't had an opportunity, however, to talk to the owner on his anchoring experiences.

 

[Marin]

There's at least one 40-something-foot sailboat on K dock which has both a Bruce and a CQR on its bow. Haven't had an opportunity, however, to talk to the owner on his anchoring experiences.

That's probably the most popular combination up here on boats with pulpits that can accommodate two anchors. If for no other reason than these two anchor types stow well side by side.

Until earlier this year when it was sold there was a nice Nordhavn 50 on the next dock in from ours. The owners, who lived in Montana, took the boat each summer up to SE Alaska for several months. When I first saw it some twelve years ago it had a pair of anchors, a Bruce and a CQR. About a year after we got our Rocna I noticed that the Nordhavn no longer had the Bruce-CQR combo on the bow. Instead it had a single--- very large--- Rocna.

 

[Rex]

Bigger is better

Hi Eric.

Eric I know when anchor discussions come up someone is all ways going to spike someone with a comment, if it’s about me, I really could not care, but I will defend a customer every time.


Eric Wrote;

Rex I read some of the posts on your link. Most of the raving reviews there can be mustered for most any product.


Well Eric I suppose I am dammed if I do and dammed if I don’t. I for one have really no idea what you mean? If it’s what I think you are insinuating in this case you are totally out of line.


Eric wrote;
I'm probably the most outspoken person regarding commercialism on the forum here and even to me your link seems too much "hawk'in your wares" but I'd still like to go back to your link see if there is something to learn between the gushing raves and I think there will be. So I hope the mods leave it for a day or two ... but no more.


Well Eric you do that.
At the same time have the link removed,i never posted it there for the reason you seem to be insinuating, you know where to find it, those customers, I will defend their integrity at all cost. (many are still trailing the Excel AND MAKE POINT OF THAT) all and the ones that purchased early are convinced, they are just good honest people that are supporting an Australian product based on how our anchors perform for them.


Anchors are a passion for all boaties and when something works well for them they like to tell the world, just look at the passion oozing out of this forum.


In some cases there is more to it than that, my wife and I travel around Australia every year demonstrating our product and talking to customers at the major boat shows, Eric, we have been doing this for 15 years, that in itself builds up a reputation and relationship between our customers, when they ring Anchor Right Australia they get either myself or my wife every time.


Eric you will also notice most of the comments come from AUSTRALIA as you are aware they are not sold in the larger countries, if they were, maybe we would have similar imputes, yes I understand all forums need a watch dog to keep the bastxxxs honest but in this case you are wrong.


Fellars, I don’t need and am not desperate to sell our product into other countries, Australia NZ, TASI, keeps us absolutely flat out here,I dont need the money, my Son has other ideas.


I really enjoy conversation with you guys but I will always be an outsider, I thought I was doing a great thing by giving you that link as it is as independent real live trials as you will get rather than me spruiking its worth.


Never mind I have learnt something else.


(five to one ratio)
Please understand, you are the user and will always believe what you are doing is fine, from where I sit I am a certified anchor manufacturer that has to give the appropriate information regardless of what the conversation may be when it comes to regulative procedure’s when anchoring.


Further I believe what I say because of the proof supplied to me by the marine authorities, classification societies, I have witnessed myself why they stipulate five to one and as a result will never be convinced otherwise.

Never going to go into why as I will be 6 feet under before I can explain, convince some.


Regards Rex.

CEO Of anchor Right Australia.

 

[Marin]

Rex--- I'm waiting for a slow computer to render a complex effect right now so here's a long one for you.....

FWIW I have not gotten the impression you are "selling" your anchor here. Explaining its virtues, yes, and defending its design, yes. But we've all been doing that with our favorite anchor types. The only difference I see between Eric's waxing eloquently about the Dreadnought or the Forfjord or whatever anchor design has most recently caught his fancy and your comments on the Sarca line is that Eric (or I) don't manufacture the anchor we happen to be singing the praises of.

It's been interesting to read the reasoning behind the Sarca design, reasoning that is based more on reality than speculation since you had to come up with an actual product that would gain acceptance and sell in the real-world market.

Most of us have anchors as an "accessory." We do not design them, we don't make them, and with the exception of people like Carl (Delfin) who have a long history of boating and anchoring experience with a wide variety of equipment, we aren't really in a position to make comparisons based on much other than speculation, what we've read or heard, or our own very limited experience with perhaps one or two anchor types in a fairly narrow range of conditions.

So your input has been interesting, and to someone looking for a better anchor than than what they have, perhaps very useful.

So I hope that when you see an opportunity to lend your design and manufacturing experience and product user observations to a discussion on this board that you will continue to do so.

PS--- We have always treated a 5:1 scope as the minimum we will let out. If we can't anchor with at least 5:1 we will go somewhere where we can. We did not learn this from experience or designing anchors or tank tests of the behavior of all chain rode in a salt water environment on alternate Tuesdays.

We read it in a book, Earl Hinz's book to be precise, and his reasoning for the recommendation made sense so that's what we do.

It--- along with all-chain rode--- was also recommended by the Rocna folks when I first called them in New Zealand to learn something about their anchors. The instruction sheet that came with our Rocna recommends all-chain rode and a minimum scope of 5:1. (What the sheet might say today I have no idea.)

So it was useful-- as a confirmation, if nothing else, that what we've been doing all these years is a good idea--- to hear you say the same thing.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Rex I wasn't trying to as you say "keep the bastxxxs honest". And I positively didn't insinuate anything about anybody's integrity. Nor have I ever questioned your product as everybody here knows I have an extremely high regard for your anchors.

But the writings of people raving about a product and the producer of that product putting the raves there for all of us to see on this little boat club is in my opinion a bit too commercial. The lot of us discussing engineering issues regarding the design of something as interesting as small boat anchors is delightful and I've learned as a result and had a good time. But as soon as it smacks of commercialism I'm going to get out my whistle. And I realize the people doing the raving aren't trying to sell your product and are just being honest but your presenting it here is commercial.

And before you get rilled about it you should consider that I may be the only one that feels this is commercial and that my opinion should be dismissed. Not everybody was supportive when I made an issue of brokers posting their stuff here. Most as I recall felt it was a good service to TF members. So you may want to consider my comments like water on the ducks back. But the brokers seem to have disappeared so perhaps action was taken and my directing attention to their commercialism was a benefit to the forum. I can criticize and I can take criticism but unless I'm told to shut and decease I'll always speak out against things too commercial here on the forum. Also in your support I should tell you that I think you are just barely over the top. And I'd like very much to continue to have you and your anchor design talk to remain here on the forum. A professional opinion here is very good for us. And when you want opinions from users of your products ... well this is a good place to be. And better with you included.

 

[Rex]

Bigger is better

Hi Eric,

No hard feelings here my friend, every forum needs a Manyboats, colour light shade you have the lot, my side, very much buried in ones own passion, your chioce of words I think did the trick, never mind I am more the wiser for the experience.

But I cannot promise I wont light up again if the right switch is flicked.

Just had word from Joe at N.R.C. his new company are placing a substancial order in the new year only for clients within their sevices, so no fear of our little anchors creeping over your state yet unfortunately.

Distribution possiton now open.

Regards Rex.

CEO of Anchor Right Australia.

 

[Peter B]

I'd like to just clarify 3 last wee points....

1. Rex, I think you misunderstood my post a bit. It was Marin who has a problem with the streamlined shape of a convex (as opposed to a concave) fluke. I don't, but possibly mucked up my explanation of why when I referred to the CQR.

2. Marin, I only referred to the CQR because it was the example you gave of a convex fluke. I have mentioned several times in other posts over time that I had one fail to set once to often, (like you with the Bruce), and replaced the CQR with a Super Sarca 8 yrs ago, and well....never looked back...and saw the boat dragging from when I planted it, ever since...

3. Eric, the posts re the testimonials regarding the Sarcas were only a link, not reproduced verbatim. You don't have to follow the link if you don't wish to, but personal testimonials are a legit comment re any product, so I think you were perhaps a little bit too sensitive re the commercialisation question - just a little, but you've sorted that out amicably now anyway, so no biggie...
Why don't you just order a Sarca # 5 from Rex and have it shipped and cover that cost by selling all (well, most of) your others....:lol:

 

[Nomad Willy]

Rex,
OK GOOD. I wasn't looking forward to going over this again today and you probably don'y have time. Because of the commercial stuff here in the past I've got a bit of a hair trigger for it.

Not good news about your distributor issue. There's probably some very good reason you don't market through West Marine or Fisheries Supply or some other big retailer. They probably look for a track record at some lower level marketing plane but it would seem you have that at home and in Europe. And most retailers probably would just see a new anchor as "just another anchor" but if people are buying ten different kinds of anchors they must see the need to have them on hand. GOOD LUCK anyway and please let us know your status here in the US as I'm sure there are at least some here that would buy your product.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Peter wrote;

"3. Eric, the posts re the testimonials regarding the Sarcas were only a link, not reproduced verbatim. You don't have to follow the link if you don't wish to, but personal testimonials are a legit comment re any product, so I think you were perhaps a little bit too sensitive re the commercialisation question - just a little, but you've sorted that out amicably now anyway, so no biggie...
Why don't you just order a Sarca # 5 from Rex and have it shipped and cover that cost by selling all (well, most of) your others...."

The link is what the yacht brokers had .. even constantly in their signature. One obviously only put up a post to once again post his business link. It's a bit like the car salesman selling cars at the coffee hour after church. Just not the right time and place. But again it's just my opinion. The moderators should decide what (if any) commercialism should be here. I for one would like NONE but I'm just one. haha Or perhaps members would better make the call??? So until there's a decision I'm going to broker for no commercial stuff.

Peter I reread your #3 and agree w it completely. My hair trigger.

But Peter you told me not to buy any more anchors.

 

[Marin]

Peter-- I don't think the convex fluke of the Sarca is convex enough to make all that much difference. By "streamlined" I was referring to the CQR.

 

[BruceK]

I,da never thunk I'd hear those words Marin.
"I would pick the Bruce"

Nor I. But,context Eric, context. You had to be about to shoot him. People make surprising choices faced with death.
Mind you,he could have chosen the faithful CQR. I might have.The only time it let us down was not it`s fault. But I think Rex`s product will prove more forgiving.

 

[markpierce]

Walking K dock today, observed that the CQR was on eighty percent of boats over 40 feet. Some had two on their bow. Some had a CQR and a Bruce. Don't you think their owners would have changed anchors if they didn't work?