Anchor design and misnomers

[Factor]

I have observed that there is a lot of labelling followed by didactic reasoning on anchor threads. Indeed some of the logic could be described as Orwellian (two legs bad four legs good). A classic example is the continual reference to convex anchors as ploughs, a derogatory term designed to suggest that convex anchors "plough" the ground, leaving aside that most anchors I have seen are symmetrical and most ploughs - well not so much, the fact is - a convex anchor does not plough - it buries.

Indeed, if you look at an old fashioned plough it is much more like a concave anchor than a convex anchor. As I type this I am look at a CQR thinking how one side of it looks like a concave anchor.

Concave anchors work okay if the scoop can continue to move the bottom aside, this is where the Spade seems to work so well. Newer roll bar scoop anchors work very well, but their limitation is the roll bar, particularly if the bottom is such that it clogs the space between the bar and the scoop. Scoops are designedc to scoop, ploughs to shift soil to one side, what we really need is an anchor that is designed to bury. To dig into and keep digging into the bottom, this is where convex anchors like the SARCA EXCEL work really well and indeed the FORTRESS also achieves excellent holding power - because it continues to dig in. These anchors penetrate without ploughing and penetrate without scooping.

When these ROLL Bar concave anchors hit the market there was a wow factor as they were sharper and pointier than anything previous, instant hold, Bruce anchors were being hung up in garages everywhere, now what do you see, new threads on how good the Bruce anchors are.

The Bruce anchors are still of concave design but have no roll bar, slow to dig in most times but will perform over a wider area than concave roll bar designs and dig deeper as they have no roll bar restriction, this is now being recognized and the old Bruce is having some renewed recognition, as it is concave it is still limited as the depth it will dig, that is why you hear all the time a bigger Bruce works better, low and behold you are now hearing the same thing with the concave roll bar, two times bigger seems to be the general consensus, even though they are supposed to be rated as S/H/H/Power anchors, and the Bruce anchor were only H/H/Power, just amazing.

Dont get me wrong, I think Supreme Rocna et al are great anchors, but I really think a discussion on the physics and a reduction in the use of of didactic, black/white reasoning would be good.

The chances of that happening are of course , minuscule

DISCLAIMER - I have no commercial involvement with Sarca or Fortress

[motion30]

respectfully , you pose many premeses that are not accepted or not proven to be fact.

[estarzinger]

I have never seen a SARCA EXCEL in person.

In photos it looks like a delta copy.

I am curious how you think it fundamentally differs from or improves on a delta?

Specifically how does the geometry differ?

[Factor]

Originally Posted by motion30

respectfully , you pose many premeses that are not accepted or not proven to be fact.

Respectfully - name them

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I have never seen a SARCA EXCEL in person. In photos it looks like a delta copy. I am curious how you think it fundamentally differs from or improves on a delta? Specifically how does the geometry differ?

Been down this path before Evans - its not a Delta copy, if it were then it would have a HHP rating like the Delta, rather than the SHHP rating that it actually has. I have seen both side by side, hell I have owned both on the same boat, the difference is quite marked when you see them up close and side by side. Certainly they are quite different in their anchoring behaviour and reliability. If appearance was the benchmark then every danforth style anchor would perform as well as a Fortress or as badly as a crap copy. If appearance was the key, then every Bruce copy would perform as well as the original or as well as the Manson Ray.

[downunder]

Haven't used one personally as yet but we are seeing them fitted to quite a lot of vessels in Australia thesedays.

They are quite a different anchor to the Delta in live view.

Unfortunately the SARCA Excel thread was closed down. It was drawing quite a few actual users to comment when I think a moderator overstepped the mark with comments without having seen one. Don't think anybody has been game to restart a SARCA Excel thread since.

Cheers

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Factor

Been down this path before Evans - its not a Delta copy.

I read the whole other thread and NO-ONE gave a specific answer on how it differs from a delta. We were just assured it was somehow different "trust us". Are the angles different? Does if somehow have more surface area? What are the specific differences?

The "HHP/SHHP rating" is not an explanation on how or if it physically differs, as I am quite sure you know.

If it performs so much better there MUST be specific, quantitative and explainable differences.

Your answer actually sounds like you think it is in fact a delta copy, but an improved copy. Is that correct? If so how specifically do you think it has been improved (in basic design and geometry).

[Jimbo485]

Anyone got a side-by-side photo of the Excel and Delta? I would be interested to see the difference visually as well.

We had a 20 kg Delta that we tossed due to unsatisfactory performance. The 20 kg Supreme has been 99% excellent, but I am considering getting a Sarca Excel or a Manson Boss, probably 30 kg.

Any first hand comments on the Boss, apart from its shear physical size?

[Stu Jackson]

Oh, No! Not another one.

When your new anchor pulls you off the bow, you KNOW you have the right one.

Until the next generation comes along.

[Cotemar]

Their is just one problem I see with the CONVEX anchors.
The spine is bent the wrong way.
They are designed to cut the seabed and push it to the sides.

A FLAT or CONCAVE anchor will hold or compress the seabed on the face of the fluke. It’s an evolution in anchor design.

[Kettlewell]

I will say that many of us have seen ample evidence that anchors vary greatly in how they perform based on very subtle differences that may not be evident upon a cursory examination, such as is made using low-resolution online photos. I once bought a Danforth copy that looked good, but certainly did not perform anywhere near as well as a genuine Danforth, which I soon replaced it with. Minor differences in dimensions and angles made a large difference in performance. The same situation has been noted when comparing genuine Bruce anchors with some of the Bruce clones--they look similar, at first glance, but perform very differently. I have also observed this with "plow" anchors, that often get called "CQRs" by folks, even though they are not genuine CQRs.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I read the whole other thread and NO-ONE gave a specific answer on how it differs from a delta. We were just assured it was somehow different "trust us". Are the angles different? Does if somehow have more surface area? What are the specific differences?

Email the manufacturer - ask him.

The "HHP/SHHP rating" is not an explanation on how or if it physically differs, as I am quite sure you know.

No - but it is an indication about how if physically performs

Your answer actually sounds like you think it is in fact a delta copy, but an improved copy. Is that correct? If so how specifically do you think it has been improved (in basic design and geometry).

[I am not sure how you arrived at that - I think I said - its not a Delta copy, and I have seen both side by side, hell I have owned both on the same boat, the difference is quite marked when you see them up close and side by side.

But this isnt a thread about Excels and Fortress, its about understanding the difference between a scoop, burying and ploughing anchor, between concave, convex and flat, between roll bar and not, but most importantly its about trying to take away some of the misnomers in the conversation.

[Jimbo485]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Oh, No! Not another one.

When your new anchor pulls you off the bow, you KNOW you have the right one.

Until the next generation comes along.

Hoho! No, Stu, I just want a third anchor to complement the MS and Fortress, in case I lose one or have to leave somewhere in a hurry. Very happy at the moment, but figure if I get a third it has to be different from the other two.

[Kettlewell]

When your new anchor pulls you off the bow, you KNOW you have the right one.

I had to laugh at that. It has happened to me with a well set Danforth, CQR, and Fortress--no need for the "new" or "next" generation, just proper technique.

[estarzinger]

Lewmar has made the delta CAD files publicly available. If someone wanted to get me CAD files for the Excel I would be happy to do a completely objective and independent comparison of them and describe/explain the differences (I would certainly be happy to keep the actual excel CAD's confidential if it was requested).

It seems to me that, given the way the Excel looks (just like a Delta in photos), this is just simply such an obvious question that has to be well answered or will be a significant barrier to acceptance. I know it is for me. I certainly don't trust the mfg's anchor 'tests', not the website 'testimony'. We all know how those can so easily be manipulated. We even know from the public Rocna e-mails how 3rd party tests can be manipulated (providing non-production anchors that are specially 'tuned' for testing, and influencing testers to only test in situations where the anchor will do particularly well, and analytically manipulating test results).

Right now we don't even have any side by side photos. All we have are these:

Delta:

Excel:

Delta:

Excel:


But based on these photos we do have, honestly, if this is not a Delta copy, I don't know what would be. Perhaps it's an "improved" copy. I would certainly like to believe that, but find it hard to take simply on "trust" given the anchor industry (with the notable exception of fortress) past actions and experience.

As to "plow", and "next gen", and "concave", etc . . . I personally figure this is mostly important to those with marketing and spin agendas. I personally find the discussion of them all much too simple to explain behavior in a complex range of bottoms and dynamic loads. I don't have any agenda except to carry the best anchor on my own boat and don't regularly use any of that terminology. I (try to) talk about specific anchors and specific features and specific geometry.

[Cotemar]

Anchor evolution

Convex plow, problem bend is up, which cuts the seabed and pushes it to the sides.

Flat Fluke, holds the seabed on the face of the fluke.

Concave fluke concentrates and holds the seabed on the face of the fluke.