Anchor Geekdom

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,292
5,495
De Nile
... 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.

 

Autonomous

Turgid Member
4,250
1,424
PNW
"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.
Q fancies himself as something of an anchor expert, you have to wonder if he is jealous. 

Steve is developing testing protocols and doing groundbreaking work. All Q has is " Americans can be very litigious."

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Autonomous

Turgid Member
4,250
1,424
PNW
I've contributed cash. Have you shared anything beyond your threatening "litigious" warning?

Does his post # 77 give you satisfaction?

 

Saw Q

Member
109
2
I've contributed cash. Have you shared anything beyond your threatening "litigious" warning?

Does his post # 77 give you satisfaction?
No satisfaction at all.  Its sad.  Anyone willing to stick their neck out testing anchors needs all the support they can get as they offer a new slant.  Interestingly a group of major beneficiaries to Steve's work has been anchor makers, some, unknown to the greater buying public (or those who do not commonly frequent forum discussion on anchors).  I'm thinking of Viking, Anchor Right and their Excel, but there are others.  Steve brought anchor testing to a greater audience - and brought some unknown anchors to the fore.

The people who should be considering sponsoring Steve's work (if they have the courage and confidence) are anchor makers - not you and I - we cannot sponsor Steve to visit Florida (as Steve has discovered)

But there were two facets to Steve's post No 77.  One facet being that he could not realise his ambition to test in seabeds distant.  But this is a common problem - most people who test do so close to 'home' - for the same reasons Steve is constrained - its simply easier and cheaper to test in home waters.   Its hardly surprising Steve could not raise the funds - sponsoring any serious anchor testing is expensive.  Just imagine the costs Fortress incurred in testing in Chesapeake Bay (and the flak they received for their anchor being found to be the best).    The other facet was his mention that he found CQR, Delta and Bruce 'easy' to set - in contradiction to the comment of the general buying public.  The unspoken suggestion is that other anchors might also have setting quirks - and these have been 'missed'.   Ease of setting allows development of hold - quickly (to a lessor or greater extent).  Steve's seabeds or testing protocols seem to favour these, CQR, Delta, Bruce, anchors but in other seabeds these anchors are 'unreliable' or demonstrably not as good as Rocna, Spade and Supreme.  I find Steve's experiences, with CQR, Delta and Bruce, unexpected, something of a revelation - and worthy of comment (and completely missing from this thread, too busy getting the cat out of the bag).

But you guys don't like alternative views - more fun shooting the messenger :)

Seems like we need to wait for someone else to pick up the mantle - hardly encouraged by people here.

 

estarzinger

Super Anarchist
7,625
1,012
Have you shared anything beyond your threatening "litigious" warning?
Beth and I had several suppliers threaten us with lawsuits - I told them to pound sand, take us to court if they wanted to but they would lose and then pay our costs.  They all 100% folded.

I did have the luxury of being trained in a highly litigious business as my first job out of business school, and also had the resources to go to court as necessary.  The vast majority of marine suppliers just want to threaten and don't want to spend the necessary resources to follow thru.

 

thinwater

Super Anarchist
1,041
133
Deale, MD
Beth and I had several suppliers threaten us with lawsuits - I told them to pound sand, take us to court if they wanted to but they would lose and then pay our costs.  They all 100% folded.

I did have the luxury of being trained in a highly litigious business as my first job out of business school, and also had the resources to go to court as necessary.  The vast majority of marine suppliers just want to threaten and don't want to spend the necessary resources to follow thru.
Yup, I've been threatened for publishing unpopular test results as well. Make sure your procedures are documented, keep fact separate from opinion, and have no conflict of interest. No problem. Then it is just data.

Questioning data and the conclusions drawn from it, and an questioning an investigator's integrity are two very different things. Steve is trying hard. Data and conclusions should always be discussed. I think it is clear that anchors perform very differently when you change the experiments. That makes it hard. I don't agree with all of Steve's choices, but he documents them reasonable well and they are all interesting. I've learned some stuff and confirmed a lot I already knew... some times by reaching different conclusions with the same data. That is the way of science.

In the last video, Steve pointed out a Rocna failure resulted to fouling. He mentioned that the Claw would not have fouled in that way. Other times we have noticed differences in mud fouling. I'm of the opinion that 90% of anchor dragging is cause by some other factor (fouling, yawing, a soft spot--hard pan--cobbles, surging ...) rather than some weakness in setting and holding behaviors, though an anchor with all A's starts from a better place. At least, that has been my experience in anchor testing, that properly set, properly sized anchors (with the exception of the Claw) don't drag unless something else is very wrong.

 

Saw Q

Member
109
2
Someone unwilling to expand on his ideas - hardly useful.

It seems both Starzinger and Thinwater have been subject to threats of litigation - this seems not to have been recognised as the feature of investigative work and not something one should point out.

It also appears that Thin has not agreed with some of Steve's work, one wonders why he has been reticent - well actually one would not wonder - raise the slightest negativity and you become THE bad apple.

Progress is not made by 'yes' men.

But you do like to find a. bad apple - the mob likes someone to pillory - so much pleasure.

You damn the Bruce anchor.  Much loved in the UK (and people don't use devices that are a liability), was a sufficient threat to the CQR that Simpson Lawrence developed the Delta.  Very successful design, certainly in larger sizes and the designer went on to develop a company with a most successful range of anchors some based on the original concept.

Maybe consider - why do you damn Bruce yet others still praise the idea.  It is still found on bow rollers of yachts that cruise distant inhospitable shores.  

 

Bristol-Cruiser

Super Anarchist
4,713
1,313
Great Lakes
Maybe consider - why do you damn Bruce yet others still praise the idea.  It is still found on bow rollers of yachts that cruise distant inhospitable shores.  
Along the distant inhospitable shores we visited we did not see many Bruce anchors at all. Seems like you started with a conclusion and made up evidence to support it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Blue Crab

benthivore
16,185
2,603
Outer Banks
I know a real sailor with a Bruce anchor BUT his name is Bruce so I can't help but think that's some New Age harmonic convergence with some juju or other. 

 

Latest posts




Top