Jump to content

Anchor Geekdom


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, loneshark64 said:

The espresso maker is pretty robust.

Was walking the dog today and my wife asked what I was thinking about. I said anchors. She said oh, I thought you were thinking about me. I laughed. Minutes later she said, tell me you weren’t thinking about me…

Never tell your wife you think she’s a drag. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think saw Q made the place a bit un-friendly. Who needs that?

When I started the anchor videos, it was just the underwater stuff and on-screen text.  Right away the accusations started flying that I was working for a particular anchor manufacturer.  Understandab

Posted Images

On 11/21/2021 at 9:09 AM, loneshark64 said:

Thank you. I was also Looking at the M2 before the good things I was seeing on the excel. I will reconsider and call them on Monday.

I've had an Ultra, Spade, Aluminum Excel and a Mantus M2 on various boats in the last 5 years.  I can honestly say that in practical useage they were all more then sufficient. IMO major differences will only show themselves in fringe situations, at which point it's unlikely that testing will be able to encompass all the variabilities that could come into play.  Steve's testing certainly makes a very valid attempt at quantifying these differences. But IMO any of his top anchors, sized correctly, with an appropriate rode will be more then sufficient for 99.9% of anchoring. Availability, price, how the anchor suits the boats launching hardware, etc are all as equally important in your final decision. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

Doing something big in a fit of pique can be cathartic but hazardous.

But doing something big in somebody else's fit of pique seems to exclude the upside.

OTOH, the result of that 18th-centiry pique is that Maine doesn't have any part of this: 

 

For anyone who wants to understand his schtick:


https://reaction.life/jeremy-vine-my-boris-story/
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

I'd be happy to if they gave discounts and sent them to my email. Watch this space.

They don't need to discount - they Spade and Lewmar, + Ultra, Excel and Rocna/Vulcan, offer better anchors.   All are Classification Society tested, which includes a Proof Test and meet SHHP requirements.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Saw Q said:

They don't need to discount - they Spade and Lewmar, + Ultra, Excel and Rocna/Vulcan, offer better anchors.   All are Classification Society tested, which includes a Proof Test and meet SHHP requirements.  :)

Snicker, titter and SNORT. He said Lewmar ^^^^^^^

Peter Smith on SHHP: "Phrases such as “HHP”, “SHHP”, and “type approval” are in common usage. Informative summaries of what these classifications actually mean tend to be in short supply." ... "Neither HHP nor even SHHP is an exceedingly high standard."

PS on classification: "One society will give their approval based on the existing approval of another – without any, or perhaps with reduced, inspection of their own."

PS: "Type approval is therefore a nice stamp of endorsement on the anchor’s design, but it generally means little in practice." ... "One-off certification for a single anchor unit, as part of a particular vessel’s overall Rules approval, may also be misused in advertising to imply society type approval for the product range when none in fact exists."

I could go on but you've read what I'm quoting already. For what most of our readers want, Steve's testing means much more than any amount of classification gobblygook. We want to know what holds in mud and sand ... even while we know that boat weight, shape, wind, chain and rope rode can change everything as surely and rapidly and reliably as the tide.

FWIW my Rocna did wonderfully in sand. 

Steve's work helps. Your opinion does not.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinwater has clearly demonstrated that increased depth of burial results in a better resistance to veering, one of his test anchors was a shallow setting Mantus.  His conclusions are based, unsurprisingly, on the anchors he tested.   High hold is a measure of setting depth, the deeper the anchor the higher the hold.  Consequently hold is a critical function of an ability to resist veering.

Now Thinwater may be wrong - his tests have been available for some time now - there are some contradictions with other tests  - but these have been buried.

 

Classification Society testing is of an anchor compared against another previously certificated anchor in more than one seabed.  This should be conducted on 3 three sizes of anchor in 3 different seabeds each anchor tested 3 times (that's nine pulls for each anchor).  These are straight line pulls.  The hold data of the anchor under test must be at least as good as the standard.  Initially the standard was a Delta, Bruce or CQR (each are HHP anchors) now the standard, for SHHP, is a previously tested SHHP, the originally tested anchor was a Manson Supreme.  For it to achieve SHHP it had to be consistently better than a Deltas/Bruce CQR and by better it had to have twice the hold.  Once an anchor is approved subsequent anchors to the same design are given the same classification - if anything changes the classification endorsement is removed.  This is what happened to Rocna when they had a standard anchor made in NZ as their test model and then replaced the fabricated fluke with a cast fluke.  Endorsement was removed and Rocna had to be retested.  In the Rocna case the casting facilities are part of the test protocol and must be approved and certificated.

The manufacture including the drawings of a an anchor are strictly monitored and any changes must be advised to the certification body and approved - or the anchor retested.

Part of Certification is ensure the paper trail, materials ordered, use of approved casting facilities etc all must remain the same or be re-evaluated.

You are correct once a Certificate is in place anchors do not need to be tested for hold - as long as the production route, drawings, raw materials etc remains the same.

Not so Proof testing - individual anchors of larger sizes are individually tested.  Each anchor tested is individually marked and has a Certificate issued exclusively for that anchor - the Proof Test certificate does not apply to any other anchor.  Smaller sizes are excluded from this as the tests are expensive and we, the leisure consumer, would not pay the costs.  As an aside chain is tested in a similar way except Proof testing is commonly part of the production process, so all chain is Proof tested (unless the recording devices are switched off)

Manufacturers of certificated product - to maintain the certification are, or the products are, audited annually.  So as long as the actual physical anchor dimension do not change from the drawings, the weights are consistent, the same quality of steel is used and production processes, welding competence etc, remain the same it is assumed the anchor today is identical to the one tested previously and no new hold data is required.

Once an anchor is certificated there is no need for another CS to produce a Certificate.   Classification Society testing protocols are all the same.   RINA, ABS and Lloyds all use exactly the same protocols and a RINA certificate is accepted world wide - why would anyone pay the costs of 2 CS certificates - that's simply incorrect.  There is a tendency for Americans to use ABS, the old Empire to use Lloyds, Italians to use RINA and the Chinese to use their own Classification Society.  Lloyds tends to be more widely internationally used (as was used by Manson) and any CS certificate is accepted worldwide for vessels 'in survey'.  

Its interesting that though Peter Smith denigrated Classification Society testing - he went ahead and obtained RINA certification - and CS testing is not undertaken lightly.  So he was critical but contradictorily went ahead and had it done.  Spade has been tested, Excel tested - no-one does this for fun.  If you want your anchor to be used on a RNLI lifeboat, a Police vessel and Superyacht, a US Navy patrol vessel, big or small, - you need certification.

 

Methinks you don't know much, actually anything - I think you are quoting anecdotally, about Classification Societies nor have you read and assimilated Thinwaters work, on veering. :(  Ignorance is not a defence - even if it engenders bliss.

 

It has never been said that Steve' s work is not valuable.  Any research into anchor performance adds to an individual's ability to choose his ground tackle.  Blind acceptance of data is dangerous and leaving inconsistencies unresolved simply underlines a lack of credibility to testing protocols.  Consequently denigrating Rocna without explanation and ignoring other research (by all parties contributing to those different results) simply leads to confusion and lack of confidence in all of the results.  Equally - with anchor testing - it is important to define the seabeds such that their characteristics are relevant - testing in the surf zone or a quarry floor raises eyebrows without better explanation - especially when those seabeds form a significant part of an overall conclusion.

 

You mention that CS scale up results - so does Steve - his results are clearly of anchors of nominated sizes - whether those results apply to larger or smaller anchors is a decision the viewer/reader must make - but most assume that a 10kg anchor is as good as a 20kg anchor (though anecdotal comment on Bruce would dispute this).

 

No testing is perfect - it is important that the inconsistencies are discussed.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah gobbleygook blah. You've said nothing new. Louder and longer doesn't mean jack. You've got your back up and butt hurt about Steve's eval of Rockna and Mantus. We got it.

I buy Thinwater's work.

No, I mean really, I buy it with money. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a Mantus M1 based on Steve's work.  I don't care about certifications etc.  What matters is whether the anchor holds and whether I trust it.  So far, tha Mantus has not disappointed including an especially "interesting" night with gusts over 50 kts and plenty of thunderstorms.  That matters to me.  Nothing else

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hallmark of a narcissist is the deployment of “word salad”.

its easier for them to do this online as in a normal social situation people would tell them to fuck off or laugh at them.

https://narcissistabusesupport.com/7-signs-the-narc-is-serving-you-a-word-salad/
 

The only thing to do here is to ignore them until some admin gets around to banning them.

Stay safe!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved up a bit from a Danforth to a Bruce just now. Someone on the island was selling an original 33 pound Bruce for cheap and I couldn't resist. The savings were somewhat eaten into when I had to get a longer anchor roller to keep it from hitting the bow :rolleyes:

I have yet to test it, but from what I read they don't seem to do real well in formal tests but almost all the owners of them love them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Saw Q said:

Thinwater has clearly demonstrated that increased depth of burial results in a better resistance to veering, one of his test anchors was a shallow setting Mantus.

 

Around here you can frequently have a layer of soupy mud that has very little holding power. If you cannot burrow through that to the firmer bottom below, your holding power will suck.

I had a Danforth hold extremely well through a hurricane. We did a bungee ride on the stretchy nylon, but the anchor never moved a bit. We found out why the next day, we had to get the CG to come by and help pull the anchor loose! Analyzing the chain, it seemed to have made it about *6 feet* down in the clay under the mud bottom!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I moved up a bit from a Danforth to a Bruce just now. Someone on the island was selling an original 33 pound Bruce for cheap and I couldn't resist. The savings were somewhat eaten into when I had to get a longer anchor roller to keep it from hitting the bow :rolleyes:

I have yet to test it, but from what I read they don't seem to do real well in formal tests but almost all the owners of them love them.

We moved from a 15Kg Bruce to a 20kg Rocna Vulcan this past season. Gave the Bruce to a dockmate. There were a number of Bruce’s for sale online (and for long times) and it was easier than getting guys to maybe come to the marina to look at it. 

Chose the Vulcan based partially on some of Steve’s work, and from feedback  from other Niagara 35 owners who have used for a number of years. it also fits well next to the rod bobstay on our boat. The Bruce needed some turning to get it inside when hauling or outside when launching. The deep shank curve makes the difference in keeping the flukes farther down from the roller  

The Vulcan has worked well for us so far. 35 nights anchored in varying bottoms on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Lot of weed in the river to get through before the muck. We always set well first time, and would let it soak down in the soft stuff and back down slowly  

Had a friend have to raft up to us one night in some squalls when his roll bar Rocna would not reset after dragging. Was loaded with weeds and was having trouble de-bearding it in the dark, so after not setting several times he came alongside. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2021 at 2:54 PM, kent_island_sailor said:

So is that a big improvement from the Bruce? The Danforth has a bad habit of getting one oyster shell on each fluke and then refusing to dig in.

The improvement over the Bruce may be partly due to the 5kg weight increase. Weight may also be repositioned. The Bruce would sometimes dig in with only 1 fluke fully covered. Could see it pretty well at our local sand (mostly) bottom anchorage.  Did haul up a 8” round boulder once on the Bruce there on a crowded day when we were farther out. Glacial erratics I think. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now for true anchor geeks you need to read this dissertation:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147126425.pdf

Please note the location for the research also note that the co-authors are giants in anchor research.

 

This is not opinion its solid research.

Kim takes a number of characteristics of anchors and devises tests to measure the impact of varying these characteristics.  Length of shank, thickness of shank, profile of shank etc etc.

To make it quick for you look at pages 169 and 170 when he looks at the optimum shank location for an unballasted fluke anchor.  Now take that optimum location and apply it to the unballasted fluke anchors available today.

Unballasted fluke anchors would include: Fortress, Danforth, Bruce, Brittany, Mantus M1, Viking, Knox, Bugel etc.  

Now....Rocna is sometime incorrectly considered an unballasted fluke anchor - the reality is that its closest relative is Spade - both are ballasted fluke anchors.  Because Rocna is a poor copy (but much cheaper to make) and does not focus or concentrate the ballast, lead vs steel, Rocna needs a roll bar. 

Much of Kim's research is not original, the optimum location of the shank of an unballasted anchor has been examined by a number of people (including Danforth and Ogg).  The value of the dissertation quoted is that Kim has looked at all the variables you could possibly imagine and collated them into one document.  Any anchor geek will already have this dissertation on file and anyone who wanted to design and market an anchor would have followed the research and incorporated the data into his calculations (especially if you were a budding anchor maker based in Houston (a centre of anchor research and recognised for excellence - internationally).

Its interesting that Bruce took the conclusions to the extreme and the crown of the Bruce is actually behind the back of the fluke.

None of this is new - its all available for free.  Kim also provides references for his work and some of those references merit serious consideration.

Cogitate over the conclusions, then look at crown location of all the unballasted fluke anchors listed (and any I have not listed) and wonder why some might step outside the norm - and importantly what are the implications of steping outside the norm.

Which all comes back to:

DEEP, GOOD.

 

Have a really great day.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a favourite anchor, one you cannot hear a bad word said against it.

I'm providing you with data and illustrations that suggest your confidence might be misplaced.  The data points are not mine but from independent research - so they have no bias either way. You are fully entitled to ignore what the industry says - that is your privilege.  Others may take a different view to you as they may find the links I provide interesting and educational.

I don't think you speak for the silent majority.

So to re-emphasise the point

All, with one exception, unweighted fluke anchors have their crown at the back of the fluke.  Just look at Danforth, Fortress, Knox, Brittany, Bruce, Bugel - then look at your favourite anchor - it has the crown 30% forward from the heel and it is an unballasted fluke anchor.  Your favourite anchor sets at about 16 degrees to the seabed (because the crown is in the wrong place) whereas these other anchors have a seabed/fluke angle of 30 degrees.  Your anchor sets shallow, other anchors set deep

Now recall you have accepted: deep = good

Now go and find an example of your favourite anchor setting at a conventional 30 degrees (in sand) - you will find this impossible and I'll provide you access to hundreds of pictures of your favourite anchor set at 16 degrees.

For further evidence of the downside of shallow setting - check back for the post where I provide an independent series of tests on a Danforth type and how 16 degrees results in half the hold of an anchor at 30 degrees.

Now if this is difficult for you to understand - that is sad, very sad.

But the truth often hurts - stop dreaming ands come back to reality.

Try not to shoot the messenger - others may value the information - unless you are one of the owners of this site you are not high and almighty and are simply making more noise with no technical background to support your clamour.  Everything I post is supported by independent and unbiased conclusions - you are just arguing without any background -

What exactly are you contributing except examples of ignorance and an inability to counter unwelcome data.

But you name is apt - crabs move sideways and hide in the sand.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saw Q said:

You have a favourite anchor, one you cannot hear a bad word said against it.

I don't. My Rocna was stolen, I'm down to 3 Fortresses* and a bigass Danforth. I almost ordered a Mantus but held up when the Viking started testing well. My mention of the deal was a PSA. 

*I haven't measured the angle of the dangle on the Danforth but the Fortresses have 2 adjustments of the dangle which I take to be a plus tho I wait for your judgement on that.

3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

WTF is going on with this thread? Did someone get past the gate guard into CA that should be elsewhere?

I know ... i know ... I'm leaving. I just can't stand arrogant bullshitters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

I don't. My Rocna was stolen, I'm down to 3 Fortresses* and a bigass Danforth. I almost ordered a Mantus but held up when the Viking started testing well. My mention of the deal was a PSA. 

*I haven't measured the angle of the dangle on the Danforth but the Fortresses have 2 adjustments of the dangle which I take to be a plus tho I wait for your judgement on that.

I know ... i know ... I'm leaving. I just can't stand arrogant bullshitters.

Crab,  I misjudged you - I thought you were defending the indefensible.  You must have more about you than I thought - if you cancelled the idea of buying a Mantus.  Makes a change to cut through the fog and find a man of discernment.

The Fortress and Danforth both address the seabed at around 30 degrees, the Fortress has the option of 45 degrees but this is only really for soupy mud and its the one occasion when a bigger anchor, than on the spread sheet, might be a good idea - and most people out of choice will want to anchor in other locations.  Soupy mud really spoils your day unless you have a really powerful deck wash - and the kids don't like swimming there.  But you know all of this - if you have 3 + 1.  I think the Supermax also offers a variable fluke angle - but it does not get much, any?, of an airing.

Most other anchors address the seabed at 30 degrees, its found to be the optimum, though if you are a real geek and check - it varies between 25 and 35 degrees (no idea why :(  - it does not seem to have anything to do with scope but might be seabed dependent).  If you are a fanatical geek and dive on your anchor looking at the setting angle (that 30 degrees) is a good indication if you are anchor is set well (and not fouled with an oyster shell - when the angle will be lower).  The ballast alters the need for the crown to be at the back of fluke and you will find that ballasted anchors have the crown around 1/3 forward from the back, of the fluke (Spade, Rocna, Excel - I don't see Vulcans nor Epsilons so cannot comment).  Measuring the fluke angle of a ballasted anchor is an act of faith - you need to make a judgement.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

I don't. My Rocna was stolen, I'm down to 3 Fortresses* and a bigass Danforth. I almost ordered a Mantus but held up when the Viking started testing well. My mention of the deal was a PSA. 

*I haven't measured the angle of the dangle on the Danforth but the Fortresses have 2 adjustments of the dangle which I take to be a plus tho I wait for your judgement on that.

I know ... i know ... I'm leaving. I just can't stand arrogant bullshitters.

I have a hard time trusting my Fortress. I love using it as a second anchor, and prior to getting the Bruce I never wanted to sit to just one anchor if I was going to go ashore, but what makes it great for running out in the dinghy also fights against it. The large fluke area and light weight can cause it to come right up to the surface if it pops loose :o

I am hoping the Bruce will do the trick for me for one anchor.

BTW - The WORST anchor I ever dealt with was a huge CQR on heavy chain in the BVIs. It tended to slide around on the bottom on its side while tricking you into thinking it was set because it was so heavy. What we ended up doing is dropping it and drifting back, then I would be overboard with a scuba tank and a tennis ball. When I was on the bottom holding the anchor point-down I would let the tennis ball go and when the crew saw the ball pop up they would back down. It was quite interesting to see and feel the anchor dig in, and also quite annoying to have to do so.

Another BTW - Do NOT confuse the Bruce and the Claw. The cheap knockoff is not as good, apparently the design is quite critical, close doesn't cut it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy who did this to me was laying, and had been all day, to a Bruce. GOM mud. My Manson, quick-set before the storm that precipitated all this, held.

AFAIC, Bruce may be good in rock I guess, but the fluke area is too small for any serious holding. If I see someone setting one and I think I’ll be to lee, I don’t stick around to get nailed again. The Bruce design was for multiple-anchor stationery oil rigs, not for single-anchor pleasure craft.

2810E986-5280-47E4-98BE-F54FC18CC2DE.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nikki and Jason of "Gone with the Wynns" have got a new Lewmar Epsilon anchor:  https://www.lewmar.com/node/20407

Video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4SsKipeG08&t=246s -- the anchor segment starts at 4m06s

They have got a stainless one, which to me seems dumb since they are dumping a 6yo stainless Mantus for fear of crevice corrosion.  They have been told that stainless anchors should be discarded after 5 years, so they are breaking down the Mantus to keep it as a backup.  But why not get the new anchor in galvanised steel, so that it has a longer life?

Has Steve tested an Epsilon?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the anchors I was most interested in when fitting out my new to me boat was the Kobra, based on reports from Europe and Practical Sailor, but I wasn't able to get one in the US. They are distributed by Plastimo but not here, apparently. I guess that hasn't changed.

My Rocna is a second choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cje said:

Yup. Video #109

Thanks, @cje.  I found the video of test 109, and .. oh dear.    Steve's chart shows that the Lewmar Epsilon is a poor performer, whereas the Wynns' previous Mantus was near the best of the bunch.  I hope that the Wynns don't try anchoring in cobblestones or soft mud ...

1089143703_Panopeanchortest1907-LewmarEpsilon.thumb.png.43b83b151f62da949d36dc6b910cf5b0.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

I’m new to this section, but am very grateful for work done by Steve and all. I appreciate this question may have been asked before and apologise in advance.

 I was wondering if you had done any simple adjustments to some of the poorer setting anchors to see what impact they have. I’m particularly interested if a simple “curved beak” type arrangement on the tip of a delta would improve its setting. It could easily be done by welding on a piece of angle iron adjusted to shape. Ie trying to make it a bit more like a sarca excell. I understand that it may alter the tensile strength, the lead filler and corrosion resistance depending on the approach to the welds. But ignoring that for arguments sake and I were in a situation more remote than most, where I didn’t have a new anchor available, and I’m happy to weld, I’d be intrigued by what happened. Any comments/ suggestions? Essentially doing as many of our farmers do here (in OZ) with agricultural equipment (which isn’t too far from what we are using), and improve on what you have to hand

Regards CK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Captain Ketamine said:

I’m new to this section, but am very grateful for work done by Steve and all. I appreciate this question may have been asked before and apologise in advance.

 I was wondering if you had done any simple adjustments to some of the poorer setting anchors to see what impact they have. I’m particularly interested if a simple “curved beak” type arrangement on the tip of a delta would improve its setting. It could easily be done by welding on a piece of angle iron adjusted to shape. Ie trying to make it a bit more like a sarca excell. I understand that it may alter the tensile strength, the lead filler and corrosion resistance depending on the approach to the welds. But ignoring that for arguments sake and I were in a situation more remote than most, where I didn’t have a new anchor available, and I’m happy to weld, I’d be intrigued by what happened. Any comments/ suggestions? Essentially doing as many of our farmers do here (in OZ) with agricultural equipment (which isn’t too far from what we are using), and improve on what you have to hand

Regards CK

Neither a Delta nor Excel have lead in the toe.

 

You seem to be suggesting that the difference, or the critical difference, between a Delta and Excel is the turned down toe.  Have you noticed the flange round the 'edge' of the fluke of the Excel?  Might the flange be useful.  Are the ballast ratios of the 2 anchors similar?  Is the profile of the fluke of the Delta 'so' similar to an Excel.

 

If you think its a flyer (and can weld) why not do it, try it and let us know.

 

To me - its like cheese - Delta is Kraft cheese (if you define Kraft cheese as being cheese) and Excel some boutique goats milk 'fromage' - both cheese - but entirely different.  You cannot change Kraft cheese into boutique goat's milk fromage and simply adding a turned down toe will not change a Delta into an Excel (or someone, like Lewmar, would have done it).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Saw Q said:

Its the depths of winter, for most of us, and anchor fanatics don't have much to discuss so this might make a refreshing change.

https://xyzairanchor.com

I have to admire someone with the persistence to persevere with an idea and take it to the market

Discuss

The best thing they could do is to send one to Steve for testing :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Saw Q said:

Its the depths of winter, for most of us, and anchor fanatics don't have much to discuss so this might make a refreshing change.

https://xyzairanchor.com

I have to admire someone with the persistence to persevere with an idea and take it to the market

Discuss

a. Before my time. No idea.

b. They show a test table, but it is from 2005 testing and is not the same XYZ (considerable modifications--might be better or worse). 0108-stainlessXYZ.jpg.optimal.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

The benefit of the polished shank is  clear but how does the cable extension help? 

The cable extension reduces the resistance of the rode to burial, chains are chunky, wire is thin.  Anything, shank, shackle, swivel, chain has volume and resists burial.  Minimising bulk allows the anchor to dive more deeply, deep setting anchors have higher hold and resist yawing.  One reason to use a G70 rode, its thinner (or can be if you choose a smaller chain.  Bulk also increases the tension angle on the shank end - so as the rode buries your scope angle becomes irrelevant - its the tension angle at the shackle attached to the shank that is important - again, smaller shackle, no swivel, smaller chain keep the tension angle low.  The higher the tension angle (or scope when rode not buried) the larger the 'lift' component of the rode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Saw Q said:

To me - its like cheese - Delta is Kraft cheese (if you define Kraft cheese as being cheese) and Excel some boutique goats milk 'fromage' - both cheese - but entirely different.  You cannot change Kraft cheese into boutique goat's milk fromage

That sounds like you’re throwing down the gauntlet, issuing a challenge.  I assure you it can be done. By Unilever/Phillip-Morris-Kraft/DuPont Corp. chemists with enough R&D money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, snubber said:

Delta has lead in the tip. 

I think you will find that the Delta is a steel cast solid toe as is a Kobra.  The Excel is slightly different it is a steel box into which steel is cast and an end plate welded on.  Spade is a steel box with lead cast into the space (and now has a resin cap to seal the lead).  Rocna is also ballasted but by use of steel plate with, about, twice the thickness of steel the rest of the fluke.  Because the steel of the Rocna does not have the focus of Spade's lead or Exc els casting - they need a roll bar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

That sounds like you’re throwing down the gauntlet, issuing a challenge.  I assure you it can be done. By Unilever/Phillip-Morris-Kraft/DuPont Corp. chemists with enough R&D money.

I am sure you are correct - whether the market will stand the R&D cost is another issue.  As Steve has found and points out little design differences can make out of proportion performance differences - change one thing and the performance changes, often unexpectedly and usually negatively.  Getting all the various facets in balance relies on a lot of R&D, call it money (or luck).  

 

It was a challenge:

If you think you have an idea - then try it.  Don't expect other people to try it for you.  Once your idea works - then ask others to try it.  Delta alone to took months to develop and though it 'looks' like an Excel (or vice versa) the performance differences (again as Steve underlines) are enormous - out of proportion to the 'supposed' similarity of design.  In fact to say the designs are similar misses, or understates, the differences.

The idea that adding a turned down toe to a Delta will make it perform like an Excel (might be right) but is more like ..... clutching at straws, a romantic idea and can hardly be original.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree that this would be an exercise of trial and error by an enthusiast, and I wouldn’t ask someone else to do it necessarily on my behalf. Though at present my arc welder is in need of replacement. I have a mate who can help out for beer or money. 

It’s important to realise many of the designs on the market were from guys mucking around with what they had in their workshop. Im not saying that the designs should be without any engineering input either. 
If the modern delta is solid steel then the concerns of a weld over a lead ballast are removed. If you’re concerned about keeping an edge on the tip then “hard face” the edge with appropriate welding rods, just as you would with the jaws on a bucket for a grader (or a plough).

If we foster a society that assumes those products sold to us from a large company or it’s equivalent Chinese knock off are the only legitimate answers to our problems then we emasculate innovation. Bugger straws, romance or American attempts at cheese ;-). (And obviously if one was to produce a device that worked it would need appropriate engineering input to ensure it was fit for purpose before sale).

So again my question was to Steve or anyone else out there who may have tried it. That is has anyone tried to weld a short piece to the tip of the fluke of a delta (these appear to be so ubiquitous around where I am) to change its profile slightly so it looks a bit like the beak of a bird of prey? Like a short bent section of angle iron (easy to “hard face” the edges). I do recall Steve having a go at modifying some of his anchors.

regards CK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Ketamine said:

I totally agree that this would be an exercise of trial and error by an enthusiast, and I wouldn’t ask someone else to do it necessarily on my behalf. Though at present my arc welder is in need of replacement. I have a mate who can help out for beer or money. 

It’s important to realise many of the designs on the market were from guys mucking around with what they had in their workshop. Im not saying that the designs should be without any engineering input either. 
If the modern delta is solid steel then the concerns of a weld over a lead ballast are removed. If you’re concerned about keeping an edge on the tip then “hard face” the edge with appropriate welding rods, just as you would with the jaws on a bucket for a grader (or a plough).

If we foster a society that assumes those products sold to us from a large company or it’s equivalent Chinese knock off are the only legitimate answers to our problems then we emasculate innovation. Bugger straws, romance or American attempts at cheese ;-). (And obviously if one was to produce a device that worked it would need appropriate engineering input to ensure it was fit for purpose before sale).

So again my question was to Steve or anyone else out there who may have tried it. That is has anyone tried to weld a short piece to the tip of the fluke of a delta (these appear to be so ubiquitous around where I am) to change its profile slightly so it looks a bit like the beak of a bird of prey? Like a short bent section of angle iron (easy to “hard face” the edges). I do recall Steve having a go at modifying some of his anchors.

regards CK

I note a contradiction - I believe Anchor Right, who seem to have introduced the turned down toe, are a small (non-Chinese) innovative, manufacturing company, they use Australian steel but you appear to be suggesting that someone (say Steve) 'knocks off' one of the significant design characteristics.  How exactly does that encourage innovation.  However you would not be the first as the Ultra anchor also has a turned down toe, of a different design to the Excel (but presumably with a similar objective).  The Excel is not the first - the Super SARCA also has a, less pronounced, turned down toe - Anchor Right are obviously committed to the idea and I am sure they will applaud someone, an Australian!, encouraging people to copy their innovation(s)  

Ultimate flattery. :(

I do note that anchor design is a hive of copying - its part of the furniture (and Anchor Right along with others have copied the self deploying, self righting shank of Simpson Lawrence' Delta).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I think this may be the usual difference in English usage as spoken between nations. When I use the term "Knock off", I mean a copy. I was not making any insinuations about Steve, but was implying that copies of other designs (or Knock offs ) were in the mix. I mention Steve doing alterations on anchors because he has, that doesn't imply I believe the practice wrong, far from it. Steve is experimenting with design. I seem to recall that he felt copies of originals had poorer outcomes on his trials.

My suggestion is that anyone attempting to improve on a design is trying to innovate. They may not be successful. But they may see an issue and try to change it, instead of just waiting for the next installment from a large company.

On another note Australia does have a practice of sending vast quantities of iron ore to China, only to exchange it for value added, land fill.

Unfortunately the quality of much imported Chinese steel (and for that sake many other metals) is inferior to that produced here. We've had faults with a variety of structures because cheaper Chinese imports were selected by contractors. We had a local Hospital under construction require significant reworking because of high lead content in brass taps for water supplies. However we continue to by this stuff because its cheap (for those that source it, not necessarily the final purchaser). This has caused a local manufacturing base to go tits up. I presume this may be a familiar concept in your country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Delta is easily modified to mimic the Excel and double its performance. 

Excel could also do with some improvements. Fix that garbage shackle shank slot for starters. Many Excel sizes wont fit an international standard shackle. Sharp edges that rake galvanizing from its shank and tear up shackles. The fluke has horns that hook into certain chain links sizes and wont let go of a wrap. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cje said:

Delta is easily modified to mimic the Excel and double its performance. 

Excel could also do with some improvements. Fix that garbage shackle shank slot for starters. Many Excel sizes wont fit an international standard shackle. Sharp edges that rake galvanizing from its shank and tear up shackles. The fluke has horns that hook into certain chain links sizes and wont let go of a wrap. 

 

 

 

 

I hear from colleagues in Canada that the issue of the shackle slot (which was a disgrace, as you rightly point out, has been rectified).   For those that are unaware - the historic slot was 'too' narrow and the shackles locked up.  This issue was exacerbated as the slots were cut leaving sharp edges which increased the opportunity for shackles to lock up.  The answer was simple, slightly bigger slots and bevel the sharp edges (like, some other anchor makers do).  The issue simply underlined a lack of understanding.

You don't underline the point but shackles are one of the few devices where, say, a 3/8th" shackle has the same dimensions - everywhere.  There might be slight differences - but they really are slight.  So if you buy a 3/8th" shackle in the UK its the same size as one from Campbell, Peerless, Crosby and anyone making them in China (though the quality, strength, might vary).  There was simply no excuse for not making the slots to accomodate that unique product  - an international standard.

Those fluke horns at the heel are also a real issue (as is) and I have not heard that the issue is being addressed.  A problem might be - those horns are there for a reason and modifying them might be difficult - how would I know.  If you are lucky, or sensible, and have downsized to G70 chain - then the appropriate anchor does not allow the chain to lock into the horns - as the links are smaller in proportion to the horns.

Picking up on Captain K's posts - we all want cheaper products, the Excel anchor is proven, it might enjoy some further development - but the route to lowering costs is to cast the fluke (guess where) and weld the shank on in Australia.   (Tell you partner the cast flukes are to be used to plough minefields - that should be enough of a diversion :)).  Cast flukes are now de rigour, Kobra, Rocna, Vulcan, Epsilon, Delta - they are all cast in the same country - there are no complaints.  Go for it!

I second CapT K's comment, even if I was playing Devils Advocate (and apparently picking on CK) but an answer lies with someone willing to take the bull by the horns, make the changes necessary and take advantage of the proven path (cast flukes) have a few thousand made - pile them high, sell them cheap.  "Modified", call it improved, Spade, Excel are ripe for the plucking.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting that a designers hard work and all the R and D involved in producing a product should be negated and we must try and get a cheaper version. Ive got to respect the effort involved, and I expect that will incur a cost if I want their product.

I'm just saying well Ive got this delta or whatever, can I make it perform better? I'm glad its stimulated discussion. I was just interested if anyone had had a go before I get the angle grinder out. Regards CK

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Captain Ketamine said:

I'm not suggesting that a designers hard work and all the R and D involved in producing a product should be negated and we must try and get a cheaper version. Ive got to respect the effort involved, and I expect that will incur a cost if I want their product.

I'm just saying well Ive got this delta or whatever, can I make it perform better? I'm glad its stimulated discussion. I was just interested if anyone had had a go before I get the angle grinder out. Regards CK

 

Captain - you go for it.  There are hundreds of Delta's skulking somewhere looking for the meaning of life.  If you ca modify a Delta to perform as well as, or as close as makes no difference, to an Excel, Spade, Viking or Rocna you will provide a service to the community.  'cje' seems to think it possible (I look to be persuaded) maybe he has ideas as I am sure he has reason behind his post :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Saw Q said:

I hear from colleagues in Canada that the issue of the shackle slot (which was a disgrace, as you rightly point out, has been rectified).   For those that are unaware - the historic slot was 'too' narrow and the shackles locked up.  This issue was exacerbated as the slots were cut leaving sharp edges which increased the opportunity for shackles to lock up.  The answer was simple, slightly bigger slots and bevel the sharp edges (like, some other anchor makers do).  The issue simply underlined a lack of understanding.

You don't underline the point but shackles are one of the few devices where, say, a 3/8th" shackle has the same dimensions - everywhere.  There might be slight differences - but they really are slight.  So if you buy a 3/8th" shackle in the UK its the same size as one from Campbell, Peerless, Crosby and anyone making them in China (though the quality, strength, might vary).  There was simply no excuse for not making the slots to accomodate that unique product  - an international standard.

Those fluke horns at the heel are also a real issue (as is) and I have not heard that the issue is being addressed.  A problem might be - those horns are there for a reason and modifying them might be difficult - how would I know.  If you are lucky, or sensible, and have downsized to G70 chain - then the appropriate anchor does not allow the chain to lock into the horns - as the links are smaller in proportion to the horns.

Picking up on Captain K's posts - we all want cheaper products, the Excel anchor is proven, it might enjoy some further development - but the route to lowering costs is to cast the fluke (guess where) and weld the shank on in Australia.   (Tell you partner the cast flukes are to be used to plough minefields - that should be enough of a diversion :)).  Cast flukes are now de rigour, Kobra, Rocna, Vulcan, Epsilon, Delta - they are all cast in the same country - there are no complaints.  Go for it!

I second CapT K's comment, even if I was playing Devils Advocate (and apparently picking on CK) but an answer lies with someone willing to take the bull by the horns, make the changes necessary and take advantage of the proven path (cast flukes) have a few thousand made - pile them high, sell them cheap.  "Modified", call it improved, Spade, Excel are ripe for the plucking.

 

 

55 minutes ago, Saw Q said:

I hear from colleagues in Canada that the issue of the shackle slot (which was a disgrace, as you rightly point out, has been rectified).   For those that are unaware - the historic slot was 'too' narrow and the shackles locked up.  This issue was exacerbated as the slots were cut leaving sharp edges which increased the opportunity for shackles to lock up.  The answer was simple, slightly bigger slots and bevel the sharp edges (like, some other anchor makers do).  The issue simply underlined a lack of understanding.

You don't underline the point but shackles are one of the few devices where, say, a 3/8th" shackle has the same dimensions - everywhere.  There might be slight differences - but they really are slight.  So if you buy a 3/8th" shackle in the UK its the same size as one from Campbell, Peerless, Crosby and anyone making them in China (though the quality, strength, might vary).  There was simply no excuse for not making the slots to accomodate that unique product  - an international standard.

Those fluke horns at the heel are also a real issue (as is) and I have not heard that the issue is being addressed.  A problem might be - those horns are there for a reason and modifying them might be difficult - how would I know.  If you are lucky, or sensible, and have downsized to G70 chain - then the appropriate anchor does not allow the chain to lock into the horns - as the links are smaller in proportion to the horns.

Picking up on Captain K's posts - we all want cheaper products, the Excel anchor is proven, it might enjoy some further development - but the route to lowering costs is to cast the fluke (guess where) and weld the shank on in Australia.   (Tell you partner the cast flukes are to be used to plough minefields - that should be enough of a diversion :)).  Cast flukes are now de rigour, Kobra, Rocna, Vulcan, Epsilon, Delta - they are all cast in the same country - there are no complaints.  Go for it!

I second CapT K's comment, even if I was playing Devils Advocate (and apparently picking on CK) but an answer lies with someone willing to take the bull by the horns, make the changes necessary and take advantage of the proven path (cast flukes) have a few thousand made - pile them high, sell them cheap.  "Modified", call it improved, Spade, Excel are ripe for the plucking.

 

Ya well... Rex was informed about these issues years ago and he decided to be a prick. If I owned an Excel I'd ask for a new one that was proper.

My concept for the Delta is bolt on. 

Steve. Is there a reason you didn't post your last vids on SA? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cje said:

Steve. Is there a reason you didn't post your last vids on SA? 

I think saw Q made the place a bit un-friendly. Who needs that?

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Russell. Speaking directly to Steve and it seems issuing a warning of the prevalence of litigation.

Q, you remember earlier how I said fuck you? Well, it still stands.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2021 at 2:45 PM, Saw Q said:

Steve,

 

I simply do not understand the results you generate with the Rocna.

 

At least two Classification Societies have tested Rocna, RINA and Lloyds and they give it a SHHP rating - meaning it has twice the hold of a HHP anchor, say CQR or Delta (and it would have a hold similar to Excel and Spade, also SHHP anchors) - in a number of different seabeds, (I think three different seabeds) and the anchor tested 3 times.  Virtually every magazine reported anchor test has Rocna at the top of the heap, the Yachting Monthly/West Marine test in 2006 and the Voile tests also reported in Yachting Monthly and/or Yachting World (and a host of other tests).  Every one, with one or two exceptions, who use a Rocna report on its tenacious hold and if you ask - no-one admits to their Rocna dragging.  Rocna is possibly the most popular 'new gen ' anchor - and if it had the hold you define - no-one would touch it with a barge pole.  Rocna was chosen by Morgans Cloud as their anchor of choice until some dragging incidents were reported due to a clogged fluke - but since those reports - there have been minimal negative reports.  Your testing is for hold and Mornags Cloud report is as a result of clogging - not a straight line hold

 

Either you have a duff Rocna or there is something very peculiar about your seabeds and/or protocol.  If there is something peculiar about your seabeds or protocol then all your results are equally invalid.

 

If you think there is something wrong with your results for Rocna and do not have an explanation for the contradiction and your seabeds and protocol are valid - then the Rocna results demand an explanation or it might be said you have some grudge against Rocna. 

 

It is quite common to have a short footnote at the bottom of a table of results - add it!

 

To me the contradiction raised by Rocna is simply too large to ignore, especially as many are going to look at the summaries and not look at 100 videos.  If you are happy that some might question your methodology or ignore what you do (because their experience with a Rocna is at odds with yours) just think what they might think .........  If I were Rocna or CMP - I might be sufficiently well entrenched in the market to think I can ignore you - I might also think to consider doing something about the anomaly - and then you might be looking for subscriptions for costs other than testing.  Americans can be very litigious.

For posterity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Russell Brown said:

I think saw Q made the place a bit un-friendly. Who needs that?

So if you ask for clarification or make a controversial point - you are not welcome.

Restricting debates to sycophants will not move your technology forward.  

Asking for an understanding of why Steve's Rocna results are in contradiction to virtually every other test of a Rocna underlined by the simple fact that Rocna is possibly the most popular NG anchor on bow rollers.  And this is deemed unfriendly.

Yes better to sweep it under the carpet - we don't need difficult questions.  Having someone with a different slant - not here - ban them.  Let's have an easy life.

 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is one window on one method of anchor testing.  Some time ago, that much maligned individual "Neeves" initiated a thread on Yachting Boating World (or YBW) which I link to here.   https://forums.ybw.com/index.php?threads/rocnas-bad-press-by-video-anchor-thread-dont-read-if-you-dont-like-anchor-threads.573702/  Neeves makes his beliefs clear in his opening post and the thread resulted in well over 100 posts from people offering their views.  I doubt many here will wade through the posts - it might upset their sensitivities.

But I, and Neeves, are not alone in our views - many share them, as documented in the thread.

 

Steve wants to receive financial support so that he can extend his work.  The YBW thread offers views, differing from those here, but those views are expressed by people who are potential donors to Steve.  As long as people question his work those people are not going to sponsor Steve.   Ignoring any questions, however hard and difficult, and leaving them to remain unanswered will guarantee those potential donors will remain potential not actual donors. 

 

CJE raised the question and Russel answered and seems to imply the reason that Steve has not posted his video here, I think its available on Cruisers Forum is because there are unfriendly elements - does this mean Steve is afraid of being questioned, that his videos do not stand scrutiny?  Surely he is not afraid of one lone voice in the wilderness :)

 

Interestingly I do recall that Starzinger also raised a question on this thread regarding the apparent fall from grace of Rocna implied by Steve's results,  - I suspect he must also be considered unfriendly.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hopefully Ive uploaded an image of a delta with tip modification. I haven't been able to contact the owner as yet, but was from a cruising forum where they were also wanting to improve the tip. I presume others have done this, whether it is sufficient will be interesting to find out.

image.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw Q and Neeves  - the same person!

Constant questioning of why Rocna don't do as well as you want (no doubt because you and an other done your own Rocna testing, for a magazine, which doesn't agree with Steve's) and the same questions as to why Mantus do so much better than you want.

Not just here but also on YBW and Cruisers forums.

Steve's tests are just in his own backyard and he clearly states results may vary elswhere. If you don't like them go and do your own as comprehesvily as Steve does. It is the best testing I have found anywhere.

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2022 at 5:42 PM, Saw Q said:

I think you will find that the Delta is a steel cast solid toe as is a Kobra.  The Excel is slightly different it is a steel box into which steel is cast and an end plate welded on.  Spade is a steel box with lead cast into the space (and now has a resin cap to seal the lead).  Rocna is also ballasted but by use of steel plate with, about, twice the thickness of steel the rest of the fluke.  Because the steel of the Rocna does not have the focus of Spade's lead or Exc els casting - they need a roll bar.

Lead tip according to Lewmar's literature. 

https://us.binnacle.com/pdf/Lewmar Delta Selection Guide & Specifications.pdf

Delta_lit.thumb.jpg.9ee9542383a1aa225c501b7c9ef15f93.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steve_sos said:

Steve's tests are just in his own backyard and he clearly states results may vary elsewhere. ...

I personally think Steve has/is doing an excellent job, and I appreciate his efforts.

Anchor testing is complicated and hard to do well, near impossible to do 'comprehensively'.  The difference between various tests are a useful measure of the complications and of our uncertainty.

For my own use, I evaluated other people's tests, made my own tests, and then ultimately after significant use, shuffled anchors around until I had the ones I was most comfortable with - and that ultimate selection was not particularly what you would have concluded was obvious from any of the tests.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Captain Ketamine said:

 

Hopefully Ive uploaded an image of a delta with tip modification. I haven't been able to contact the owner as yet, but was from a cruising forum where they were also wanting to improve the tip. I presume others have done this, whether it is sufficient will be interesting to find out.

image.png

Interesting post, keep us upto date if you get reports back on performance.

 

Even better - offer a link - then anyone, everyone can keep up to date.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, estarzinger said:

For my own use, I evaluated other people's tests, made my own tests, and then ultimately after significant use, shuffled anchors around until I had the ones I was most comfortable with - and that ultimate selection was not particularly what you would have concluded was obvious from any of the tests.

CQR for #1?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a CQR, it was OK, had a Rocna, it was OK, those went with that boat. Got this boat, had an underperforming 66# claw type, but it was definitely NOT a real Bruce, it was crude and dull. Replaced it with (at Steve's suggestion) a 44# Spade, which fits the bow like a glove, digs in and sets hard, launches and retrieves nicely. The paint or sticker on the thing seems to shed mud very nicely, we'll see how that lasts. 

My first race series with the new anchor was the Boothbay Shipyard Cup, looking in the bow locker crew found the 66 # claw still on the boat. We sent Elegua's strong young son ashore with it with a tag saying "FREE ANCHOR", to leave near the club parking lot. I'm told it disappeared quickly. Good riddance.

1727363627_newanchor.jpg.e4ab9069eb3b9b03432a0feb8e72fc5c.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it - anchor designers know that the shank of an anchor can be subject to stress, so they try to ensure they will not bend.  Owners then drill holes in the shank, commonly to secure the anchor on the bow roller.  The idea that drilling a hole might, will, compromise strength .......?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Saw Q said:

I love it - anchor designers know that the shank of an anchor can be subject to stress, so they try to ensure they will not bend.

I suspect this has way more to do with the cable extension on the short stubby shank than some slight advantage in burying.

XYZ Air Marine Anchor

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2022 at 2:53 AM, snubber said:

 

 

If you check Lewmar's current website, not the website of a distributor nor an old specification, you will find no mention of lead in the toe.

https://www.lewmar.com/node/11594

Lead in the toe would be an advantage as it concentrates the ballast.  Having lead in the toe is a technical advantage you would not omit in your marketing information if you were a manufacturer.   Sadly it is an 'extra' step during manufacture, especially if you have to seal the lead in the toe by welding on a backing plate.  Lead in the toe would also be a disadvantage as is evidenced when people try to re-galvanise a Spade.  

It maybe of course that Lewmar make 2 versions of the anchor which would explain why there are 2 specifications.

I'm not sure what happens with a lead ballasted, sealed, toe when you galvanise.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2022 at 5:51 PM, Cruisin Loser said:

I had a CQR, it was OK, had a Rocna, it was OK, those went with that boat. Got this boat, had an underperforming 66# claw type, but it was definitely NOT a real Bruce, it was crude and dull. Replaced it with (at Steve's suggestion) a 44# Spade, which fits the bow like a glove, digs in and sets hard, launches and retrieves nicely. The paint or sticker on the thing seems to shed mud very nicely, we'll see how that lasts. 

My first race series with the new anchor was the Boothbay Shipyard Cup, looking in the bow locker crew found the 66 # claw still on the boat. We sent Elegua's strong young son ashore with it with a tag saying "FREE ANCHOR", to leave near the club parking lot. I'm told it disappeared quickly. Good riddance.

1727363627_newanchor.jpg.e4ab9069eb3b9b03432a0feb8e72fc5c.jpg

That's good to hear. Based on Steve's advice I got the 66lb one. My mom might get another anchor for her garden. She already has my CQR.  Now she'll have a CQR and a genuine Bruce... should I take back the 2 bladed spare prop? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thinwater said:

I detect sarcasm.

A magazine infomercial.

At least someone noticed.

 

Except virtually no information.  No wonder printed media is having a tough time.

There is a wealth of quantitative data on most of the anchors, just pull out a summary from this thread for a start.  The comments on the Epsilon, where a serious review is over due, appear to have been made without actually using one.

 

Makes you weep if this was meant to actually be useful and help owners to make a decision

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2022 at 1:43 PM, Saw Q said:

... The comments on the Epsilon, where a serious review is over due, appear to have been made without actually using one.

 

Makes you weep if this was meant to actually be useful and help owners to make a decision

"Boo hoo, someone doesn't like my favorite anchor."  Likely Weeping Q quote. 

 

Give it a rest buddy, did you subscribe to his reviews? Pitch in some cash? Yeah, didn't think so. Plenty of seabed out there for you to build a rig and test anchors.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites