Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[congo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by congo
sailorboy1

Well sailor boy I suppose if you are an anchor manufacturer trying to share your experiences one could be forgiven for your observation - opinion, never mind it was genuine information not crap observed from over many years.
Sorry you see it that way, we don’t have a supplier over your way that is why I don’t bother advertising but pay the price for not.

But never mind if I think I can shine some light on a question then your comments will not deter me.
Regards Rex.


How did you know I was talking about you? Having been around mechanical equipment sales for years I am used to product "features" that sound nice but mean little in real life.

That's OK. Based on this and your various other low key trashing of other anchors I wouldn't buy your anchor anyway. Just like Craig Smith when on CF turned me off to the ronca. I can tell that you have lots of experience, but when someone tries so hard it starts to put up warning flags to me.
__________________
why so serious

Yes well when it comes to product and the way it suits you to read it I am quite a bit less equipped to combat your comments, 6,592 posts I think I have made a total across all forums of 190 so a bit out of my league when some like yourself decides to put a different t spin on my comments, commenting on forums as you can see is not a well honed skill of mine such as yours, but not unlike your experience in playing watch dog and sorting out the crap, my experience is over twenty years in anchor development, if you are an engineer you should be able to see that what I am saying is indeed not crap.

Further if you are genuine you would have gone to our web site before making your well placed comments and checked out what I have said, there you can question all of what we have done by contacting various authorities to confirm your theories, if you were to do this you may have given me the benefit of the doubt and have been less informative of your assessment of myself, no I am not holding my breath.

I suppose any comment s that I make as a manufacturer of anchors is always going to look defensive, not much I can do about that, yes the passion one possesses when designing product can easily get out of hand and come across as aggression , if I have been seen to do this then i Apologize to all. I mean well and my caricature is honest.

If you would not buy our product, ( I will be polite ) then that’s fine by me .
Regards Rex.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by congo

]Further if you are genuine you would have gone to our web site before making your well placed comments and checked out what I have said,

I have read all of your web site.

But it sounds like you can not accept it if people don't accept everything you say as the truth and accept that all other anchor designers are wrong and only you are right. When you repeatedly say how all other others are wrong and you are right, well...........

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by Jimbo485

Noelex, do any of the old gen anchors meet the SHHP certification standard?

The only one I know of is that the CQR was rated a HHP (half the holding power of a UHHP). While I agree that these classifications are pretty minimal, until a higher rating is certified by the classification societies it is the best non biased option we have, unless you trust the magazine data (which I do).

The Delta is a HHP
Many of the claw type anchors are HHP (like the Bruce).

[congo]

Re: Anchors, Bigger is Better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by congo
]Further if you are genuine you would have gone to our web site before making your well placed comments and checked out what I have said,


I have read all of your web site.

But it sounds like you can not accept it if people don't accept everything you say as the truth and accept that all other anchor designers are wrong and only you are right. When you repeatedly say how all other others are wrong and you are right, well...........
__________________
why so serious



Well........ Another well honed asessment, I just hope I can learn something from it.


Regards Rex.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by congo

[B

Well........ Another well honed asessment, I just hope I can learn something from it.


Regards Rex.

Tell me more about how all this makes your anchors best.

[congo]

Re: Anchors, Bigger is Better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by congo
[B

Well........ Another well honed asessment, I just hope I can learn something from it.


Regards Rex.

Tell me more about how all this makes your anchors best.
__________________

Sailor boy, I cannot keep fueling your need for attention-noticed, further if I try to explain then the out come will mean I have learnt nothing form you.

Shadows are becoming tall for me and I have no need for the dollars, what is important I will eave in history, a legacy,attention seekers are forgotten.

But hanks for your question, intersting one.

Regards Rex.

[congo]

Re: Anchors, Bigger is Better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo485
Noelex, do any of the old gen anchors meet the SHHP certification standard?

The only one I know of is that the CQR was rated a HHP (half the holding power of a UHHP). While I agree that these classifications are pretty minimal, until a higher rating is certified by the classification societies it is the best non biased option we have, unless you trust the magazine data (which I do).

The Delta is a HHP
Many of the claw type anchors are HHP (like the Bruce).
__________________
Greg Rubin
Attorney


Super High Holding Power is a very expensive process,we have been through the whole process, when dealing with boats under survey it is a must or you simply cannot supply that industry, more importantly you cannot beat buying a certified anchor as its designers can be held accountable if in fact it is proved not be certified as such in the event of an accident.

Good insurance, and assures a standard of quality.

Regards Rex.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by congo

Sailor boy, I cannot keep fueling your need for attention-noticed, further if I try to explain then the out come will mean I have learnt nothing form you.

.

Hey you started this childishness rant just because I didn't accept all the claims posted. And I never even said they were your claims when you went on the passive attack.

BTW - I really enjoyed the "environmentally friendly" claim of your anchor. That was a different approach.

[congo]

Re: Anchors, Bigger is Better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by congo

Sailor boy, I cannot keep fueling your need for attention-noticed, further if I try to explain then the out come will mean I have learnt nothing form you.

.

Hey you started this childishness rant just because I didn't accept all the claims posted. And I never even said they were your claims when you went on the passive attack.

BTW - I really enjoyed the "environmentally friendly" claim of your anchor. That was a different approach.
__________________
why so serious


Yes well your passion certainly is exposed, no personal attacks from this side, I think I am becoming to like you. Obviously you have been reading our web site, earlier you said my posts turned you off so was not intersted in reading them.

Enough is enough I am sure more are intersted in anchors than our differnces.

Regards Rex.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Tell me more about how all this makes your anchors best.

I don't remember Rex saying on this forum that his anchors were the best. Perhaps some confusion with Mantus?

The reason I personally like his product even though I don't own one is because I like his test methodology and the robust nature of his mettalurgy. The balance beam seems to be a very fair way of doing a bake off, and since these tests are frequently supervised by independent parties, I don't see a reason to reject them.

I think it's also worth noting that Anchor Right doesn't sell anchors in the Northern Hemisphere, so it's hard to see how to take his contribution here as commercially motivated. I've yet to hear from an Ozzie who doesn't hold his products in high regard, so I doubt he needs to reach that audience via this forum. Seems to be doing fine on his own. Specifically to the question of the performance of the Excel, how would you criticize the result shown in this video:

SARCA Excel to The Test - YouTube

Or in a comparison to other types of anchors, how would one criticize this test methodology:

007 The Snatch Test - YouTube

I have my own opinion on what constitutes the "best" anchor, but whatever your standard, it does seem to me that the Sarca product deserves some respect, and not the weird hostility exhibited by some.

[Jimbo485]

Originally Posted by Stumble

The only one I know of is that the CQR was rated a HHP (half the holding power of a UHHP). While I agree that these classifications are pretty minimal, until a higher rating is certified by the classification societies it is the best non biased option we have, unless you trust the magazine data (which I do). The Delta is a HHP Many of the claw type anchors are HHP (like the Bruce).

Ok. So even though some here regard the SHHP test requirements as too easy to fulfil, there are various common anchors that cannot reach even. that low standard?

[congo]

S/H/H/Power is not easily obtained, extreme loads are applied both in field and proof testing, there are many anchors out there that would certainly not survive or acquire certification.


The original Sarca anchor was certified with H/Holding power, when Manson Supreme introduced S/H/H/Power we stepped up to test the Sarca for the same certification, quite shocked to find we struggled, so back to the drawing board to revamp the steel thickness in Sarca to what is now called Super Sarca, certified with Super High Holding power.


For those of you that are interested, all of the methods for proof testing and field testing are on our web site to obtain S/H/H/Power.

Regards Rex.

[Jimbo485]

Thanks, Rex.

We are not ready yet, but our next anchor will be from AnchorRite. I still have your quote.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by Stumble

The only one I know of is that the CQR was rated a HHP (half the holding power of a UHHP). While I agree that these classifications are pretty minimal, until a higher rating is certified by the classification societies it is the best non biased option we have, unless you trust the magazine data (which I do).

The Delta is a HHP
Many of the claw type anchors are HHP (like the Bruce).

What appears to have happened is that in order to enjoy SHHP the first anchor was tested against an already approved HHP anchor (which could have been a Delta or CQR). The original SHHP testing was supervised by Lloyds and I am pretty sure the test regime they approved was good - primarily as it was the first but equally important Lloyds have a, very good, reputation to protect.

Here, in Australia, in order to be classified as SHHP the anchor must equal or better Manson's Supreme. The reality is that the Supreme might have been much better than 2 times as good as whatever the standard was - but the standard here is the Supreme.

Classification Societies generally follow the same rules - internationally, and it is unlikely RINA's assessment of Rocna or ABS assessment of Ultra was much different to the technique used in Australia. A significant fault I find with CS testing is the lack of transparency - we do not know what seabeds were used (it is to be a minimum of 2 different seabeds), we do not know what rode was used (the scope can be as little as 5:1 but more commonly 10:1) and we do not know what the standard anchor was -against which the 'new' model was tested.

Coincidentally if you take most magazine tests they show almost exactly the same results, the new anchors, Supreme, Rocna, Excel etc are around twice as good as Delta and CQR. There are variations but on average the magazine tests are - in total - fairly consistent. Equally if you look at the other newer anchors, Spade, SARCA, they too are about twice the holding capacity of the more traditional models, Delta and CQR. Again there are variations - which one should expect - but on average the 'new' anchors are about 'twice' as good as the old ones. Given the different cross section of design concepts it would be extraordinary if they all worked as well as each other in every magazine test - different seabeds, different scopes, different rodes. But on balance the anchors introduced over the last 20 years are twice as good as anything earlier.

The exception is Fortress which consistently produces holding capacities well in excess of 2 times a Delta and CQR and is difficult to classify as it is so 'light'. But its enduring success suggest many in the market place recognise its unusual and positive characteristics.

Magazine tests in general do not test for strength, though attempts have been made. Recent threads suggest many on this Forum think strength a bit of a waste of time. Magazine tests do not test for quality of manufacture. Both of these facets are covered by CS testing.

But this thread was originally focussed at a concept that the superiority of the new gen anchors was accepted (that was a joke to start with) and that an individual's choice of anchor was not to be argued with, that became another dream!. The thread was whether a trend to oversizing of these new anchors was justified and had basis in fact. The trend specifically was that serious cruisers (serious was not defined) would be best served by taking anchor weight vs yacht size recommendations and increasing their anchor size by 2 sizes or 2 steps, which in many cases meant increasing anchor size by 50%.

Interestingly a trend that is discernible is that most people who upgraded from a traditional anchor to one of the new models went one size bigger in any case - even though the anchor they were buying was twice as good. No wonder everyone swears by their new anchor - they are not comparing like with like. Additionally we have anchor watch, we are cognisant of the advantage of long nylon snubbers and we have pretty detailed cruising guides - yet we want to go bigger still.

But if the new anchors are twice as good and our forebears survived with pretty average anchors why have we not taken advantage of the superior holding capacity of the new anchors and gone down in size? If the next generation takes another leap in holding capacity will we again upsize?

Therein lies the rub!

Jonathan.

[Stumble]

Jonathan,

You make some good points, and raise an interesting question at the end. Frankly I still recommend the largest anchor you can possibly fit on your boat, because there is little downside to a larger anchor. With modern anchor handling equipment additional size just isn't much of a downside. So the only advantage to a smaller anchor is a slight increase in cost, when compared to the potential consequences of dragging an anchor it seems like cheap insurance to just go bigger.

One of the other issues is that many anchor manufacturers make recommendations based upon general use, not true ocean cruisers. The things I need my anchor to do day sailing around the Gulf Coast just aren't that difficult, and I am never that far from a marine. Were I headed to the North Atlantic for high altitude cruising I would want something comfortable in steady 50kn breezes that could last for day.