Originally Posted by noelex 77
I can understand the reason for YM quoting a maximum as 5000lb. At this point the test was terminated so 5000lb should be read as a” minimum of 5000lb”. I think the higher figures quoted by Sail is probably misleading, but why such a difference in the other results ? Why did Sail only report on 3 of the 4 test locations ?
I don't think put 'minimum' is a good idea. Most anchorers are idiots and don't know anything so many would see minimum and think it's fine to push the 5000lb, even though most would never get there anyway.
The results vary for lots of reasons. Small seabed variations, dragging through the track of another anchor
, a bit of seaweed, wave action affecting the test boat
, all sorts. That's why you should never take anchor tests as gospel, only an indication and often only a rough one at that.
We've done lots of testing and I can show you numbers that swap the anchor performance positions around a bit. Again with some weird and big number differences.
I think the best way to look at any test is to take a hard look at how they did it. By that I mean how close to reality was it? And then pick the top 3 or 4, then of those which fits your boat
and then the one that just makes you feel the happiest. Some would include price
in there but I don't think that is a good way to pick an anchor. Just because it costs more than another is zero indication of it's performance in comparison.
If you look the same group of anchors are usually the top of each test. They may swap positions and load numbers around a bit each time but the top group do seem to be the same each time.
Obviously that excludes any new comers. Some do well and some just don't. If one does feature at or in the top group and assuming the test on all anchors was done exactly the same it probably is also good.
Also most tests are done to loads 99.8% of boats would never ever get close to in reality.