Anchor Geekdom

valis

Super Anarchist
3,782
611
Friday Harbor, WA
No, I think Steve is correct if you think about it for a moment.

His result is not "unknown" when an anchor did not drag, it is a "greater than" some value, in which case it is completely logical to scale the arrow to anchor weight. Steve was correct. This is common practice, similar to drawing error bars.

This is not easy data to present and there is no perfectly simple way to present it. Anchor testing is a tough business.
I have thought about it, and I can see the merits of either approach. And it is likely that a smaller anchor will drag more easily than a larger one, even if you don't know how much force is required for it to drag.  But weight is probably less important in determining embedded drag characteristics than is size.  I agree it's difficult to present this data (or lack of data), be it for anchor testing or for anything else.  But here we don't know if the "greater than" drag force would be 1X or 2X or 10X for a particular anchor, so this is why I think the scaled arrows are misleading.

In this case it's just a quibble -- as long as the chart includes an explanation I'm not going to actually complain about it!  In fact, I would have been be thrilled if Steve had just thrown all those anchors overboard and merely told us what he thought.  What he has actually done is deserving of high praise and gratitude.

 

tDot

Member
233
127
BC
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. 

 

Saw Q

Member
109
2
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.   :)

 

Blue Crab

benthivore
16,499
2,711
Outer Banks
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.

 

Saw Q

Member
109
2
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.

 

Blue Crab

benthivore
16,499
2,711
Outer Banks
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. 

 

py26129

Super Anarchist
2,880
217
Montreal
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

 

kent_island_sailor

Super Anarchist
27,659
5,511
Kent Island!
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.

 

kent_island_sailor

Super Anarchist
27,659
5,511
Kent Island!
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!

 

Autonomous

Turgid Member
4,345
1,523
PNW
I stumbled across a barely used Mantus dinghy anchor kit and, based on Steve's work, bought it.

It is a generation earlier than the breakdown model he tested, hopefully it works almost as well.

 

wick

Member
330
82
Ontario
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. 

 

Latest posts




Top