That's fine.

No, the shank doesn't provide instability in all directions, particularly in softer bottoms. I say this from several years of experience with the anchor; without the rollbar, there are stable positions the anchor can land in that will not let it set on its tip.

"Scientific" evidence will never be available because one cannot ever set two anchors in the same place. The mere setting of the first anchor disturbs the medium for the second. So the "side by side" comparisons must suffice. And there are a lot of them from independent sources - PBO, PS, WM, etc. WM did their tests independently from Rocna - they had no commercial interest in it and weren't selling those anchors at the time. And why shouldn't the tests be done with company recommended sizes? Even though I agree with you that they should be more similar (actually, I think they should be compared by fluke area), using "recommended" sizes helps flush out the unsavory sizing practices used by some companies.

We have or have had cqr, bruce, delta, rocna, spade and fortress on our boat and have used them in identical sites for many years. Rocna, spade and fortress are all that remain on board, and that decision was based on experience with each anchor.

Again, if the roll bar doesn't fit your bow configuration, go with another newer generation anchor besides rocna - they work just as well. If cutting off the roll bar makes it no different than your current cqr, then why consider it at all?

The attached picture was made by a poster called Mainsail and shows some factual differences in common anchors. These are equal weight anchors.

Mark