Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

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.

I don't see any justification, in the the results of the magazine tests, for grouping the SARCA and Spade at the same sort of performance level. The steel Spade is a consistent top performer. The SARCA is a middle of the road performer. Generally it is below the level of the Delta (the CQR nearly always tests very poorly) (note some earlier tests are for the SARCA rather than the slightly modified current Super Sarca)

The big 2006 sail magazine results are below. The SARCA did a bit worse than the Delta.(see results below)

The German Boole Anker test of 2009 gave the Sarca a "mangelhaft" or unsatisfactory rating for sand. Unsatisfactory for weed and unsatisfactory for mud.

The 2006 Practical sailor test (soft mud only) rating the setting as "good" and "fair" and the holding tests were in the middle of field. In their veer tests it was given a very good rating, but did not score a "best choice" or even "recommended" star.

The yacht first test of 2009 gave it one star out of five

The Italian Vela anchor review gave it two stars out of five (although this was a summation of previous tests rather than new findings)

The only "test" (This was not published or commissioned by a magazine) that I can find where the SARCA has done well, let alone anywhere near the Spade level of performance was the the Robersons "test" that was commissioned and paid for by Anchor Right using Anchor Right's equipment and using the beaches Anchor Right used when developing the anchor. It showed the SARCA comfortably beating all other anchors including the Rocna and Manson Supreme. The only anchor that beat it was Anchor Right's own Excel anchor. The SARCA's average holding power was over 2x greater than the Manson Supreme.. I maintain a heathy dose of scepticism over these results.

I am not sure why these threads always end up with us discussing Anchor Right anchors.

[VFerreira]

Originally Posted by Delancey

Polished stainless is for posers. Gold plated is where its at!

Dammit!

Chain too?

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Stumble

I would want something comfortable in steady 50kn breezes that could last for day.

It is good to see another "bigger is better" supporter, but it is a forum rule that we don't use "comfortable" and "50 knots" in the same sentence

[congo]

Well Noelex here we go again,

Sailor boy couldn't do it? what is it with you guys, also tell your readers that all of the tests you have bought to attention were the original Sarca, further they were made in New Zealand long before Rocna and Manson.

After we finally retrieved the rights we were able to manufacture back here in Australia, if they made those original Sarcas the way we were screwed, simply I have no comment as we were never privy to any of those tests, none of the tests you refer to was the Super Sarca.

I suppose you are now insinuating that the Robertson test and any other Australian test was rigged, Robertson a great company Australia wide selected by the N.M.S.C. I think you are treading on thin ice with this one. I would indeed be cautious. I am sure the N.M.S.C. would also be interested in this one.

Further your are insulting not just myself but family, I will not stand for it, we do not achieve from hand outs to get results, twenty years of hard work and reputation is what gets our results.

You have known the history of the Sarca for many years and are aware it was before Super Sarca, you have been aware of all testing, you have commented many times, but you have never gone this far, I must say I am disappointed.


Then again maybe this thread has run its course, any show of support for Anchor Right so drop the axe. This would truly be a tragedy as amongst the rough edges many have contributed and gained knowledge.

Regards Rex.

[foolishsailor]

There is no need to get bent out of shape Rex.

In any industry whether tech, pharmaceuticals, engineering or whatever - a test that is paid for by a company is suspect when compard to one held by a neutral body.

Think of all the tests paid for by tobacco companies that showed that smoking wasnt harmful. One has to question the results if it favors the one who paid for the test.

This doesnt mean the tests conducted were not valid, just that they dont compare with other tests.

Your points are noted regarding the change in design of the anchors between the two sets of tests and this seems a valid point.

Just because someone challenges you on this forum doesnt mean they challenge you and your families honor and expect to duel with pistols at dawn.

Take it easy, stick with facts. This is just a forum.

[congo]

Foolish Sailor,

You have made your point, Easy for you to say, you are not the recipient, difference being this was not a performance test as such, no one has their anchors tested for classification without paying for them, I am Sure Robertson in the light of Noelex's comments will be celebrating, if it was Lloyds would Noelex still make the same comments?

No I am not bitter and do certainly not refer Noelex's comments to warrant drawing a pistol, Anchor Right Australia will have its day with overseas testing some time or another , in the mean time you will just have to put with all future testing in Australia as being rigged.

It should be noted that I have copied this for future reference, anyway let’s not detract from this very informative thread. Stay on the track of anchors and not Anchor Right.

Regards Rex.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by JonJo

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. .

Good point, I will now wait a couple of years for the next new design and enjoy twice the holding power of a Spade or Rocna.

Pete

[noelex 77]

Rex I accept that that these tests particularly the comprehensive test in yachting world was done on the SARCA.
The change from the SARCA to the super SARCA was quite a minor one, but the effect of turning the last couple of inches of the blade up instead of down should be beneficial. I hope it signals some recognition that with this type of anchor making the blade less convex, or preferably concave increases the holding power.

Your own claims are that the Super Sarca has 30% more holding than the SARCA. If we accept this increase at face value we can look at the Yachting world tests.
The holding power for the SARCA was at 4 different locations.

SARCA
1,500 lbs
1,250 lbs
750 lbs
1,250 lbs

Delta
3,000 lbs
3,500 lbs
3,600 lbs
1,500 lbs

Even if we allow your figures of a 30% improvement the Super Sarca would still be well short of the Delta.
I stand by assessment that the results are a long way short of Spade and even a generous interpretation of the test results puts the Super Sarca at a Delta level of performance, contrary to JonJo's post.

I would caution that Independent test results should only form a part of overall assessment of an anchor.

Lastly please accept my apologies if I have offended you, or your family. I do not agree with personal attacks on the forum and I am dismayed that you should take my comments in that light.

I am happy to discuss and criticise anchors. These are just (important) lumps of metal that sit on the bottom.

[congo]

Noelex the history of the Sarca is long.

The ramifications of being sucked in by an entrepreneur from New Zealand is even longer, the last time I visited the factory over there I found No 4 shanks on No five anchors, I found rights to our product sold around the world, then the big crunch many thousands of dollars borrowed on my house by yours truly.

Lucky to still be here, the modifications you talk about are totally incorrect, the 30 percent increase on holding power was that of the original Australian made Sarca's, not the Sarca's you are referring to, if you are in any way sincere of your comments you say that may have offended, then it is accepted, if you go back over the forum you will find many of the crumbs that have been dropped leading to discussing the Sarca over and over again have been dropped by yours truly.

We are doing extremely well in the Marine Industry across the board from the smallest tiny to very large vessels of which I am sure that you are aware of, we are a pea in the industry of anchor technology, because of our success we are seen as a threat, unsubstantiated but I believe this is why we attract so much attention, never mind we are here and tend to stay.

Regards Rex.

[Fuss]

I am sometime surprised how badly my Bugel anchor does in tests compared to some of the others.
I cant believe its really so inferior but maybe it is. I have no way to test it.

I have a few requirements for an anchor that sofar my Bugel seems to fulfill.

1- I have to be able to leave the boat on its own for at least a full day (maybe a full 24 hrs) without undue worry... otherwise you can't visit anywhere.

2- It has to not drag ever unless I consider its down to my faulty anchoring technique.

3- I have to believe that it holds in 70 knots of wind.

4- It has to dig in immediately without any mollycoddling or waiting for it to feel good etc

if I had an anchor that did not fulfill these 4 things, I would change it immediately.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Fuss

I am sometime surprised how badly my Bugel anchor does in tests compared to some of the others.
I cant believe its really so inferior but maybe it is. I have no way to test it.

The Bugel is a good anchor.

I would rate it above the Delta despite the 2006 Yachting world test. This is where it dangerous to place too much emphasis on the magazine tests. Especially any single magazine article.

They are incredibly difficult, time consuming and expensive to do and don't mean to dismiss the efforts of the people involved.
However they have some limitations. They only have a small number of trials on each anchor in a few locations. The locations are chosen for their consistency and do not always represent typical anchoring substrates. The anchors are tested immediately without a long period to "settle". There is no change in direction of pull (or when this simulated the results do not match what happens in the real world).

Perhaps most importantly the steady pull from a big tug boat does not match the jerky motion of yacht swinging at anchor.

I think at the very least we should try to read as many tests as possible, putting greater emphasis on those tests that are well conducted.
The 2009 yachting monthly test for example rated the Bugel the fourth best anchor well ahead if the Delta that was rated 8th.

Putting these results together I think accurately reflects where the Bugel sits in the anchor hierarchy. It is a good anchor, but does not have the benefit of the more sophisticated concave blade shapes of the more modern anchors.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by VFerreira

Dammit!

Chain too?

Keep in mind most of these anchors are made from steel, a basic commodity traded freely throughout the world as comparable, regardless of origin. The going rate for steel in the US is around a buck a pound give or take.

Now if I take some steel and make it into a "new generation" anchor-shape and put it in a store here in the US, people will seemingly happily pay a 1,000% mark-up for that commodity. Why is that?

If I shape it into a chain-shape instead they only seem to be willing to pay a 350% mark-up. I guess humble chain isn't so glamorous, maybe we should gold plate it too? Seems like without the chain the anchor is worthless, so why all the fuss?

Prices at West Marine-
44lb Rocna/Manson Supreme $435/$475
1.5lb 3/8" G40 Chain $5.50

[congo]

Re: Anchors, Bigger is Better? By Fuss

I am sometime surprised how badly my Bugel anchor does in tests compared to some of the others.
I cant believe its really so inferior but maybe it is. I have no way to test it.

I have a few requirements for an anchor that sofar my Bugel seems to fulfill.

1- I have to be able to leave the boat on its own for at least a full day (maybe a full 24 hrs) without undue worry... otherwise you can't visit anywhere.

2- It has to not drag ever unless I consider its down to my faulty anchoring technique.

3- I have to believe that it holds in 70 knots of wind.

4- It has to dig in immediately without any mollycoddling or waiting for it to feel good etc

if I had an anchor that did not fulfill these 4 things, I would change it immediately.


Fuss I don’t know if anybody realizes just what an informative post this is, this is what anchor threads need to relate to, quite incredible how all have been trained to holding power figures only.


When we released the Sarca twenty years back we tested for High Holding power, if we did a static drag test we would meet the holding power per kilo of anchor, this was relatively low compared to the Super High Holding Power requirements, strangely enough even our shonky anchors produced in New Zealand that were used in the West Marine Test still met High Holding power certification, this is the thing, we never had a claim because these anchors would not hold, infact we received many great reports from customers of how well they performed.


The bugle is a great simple anchor design that works extremely well, if the right size anchor is used on a boat chances are reports will be similar to the comments of Fuss. This is the thing with new generation designs, lets also add new generation marketing, with the evolution of Rocna and Manson Supreme performing at far higher levels of holding power, than previously recorded it was recognized, a continuous static pull will produce far higher figures than previously recorded from any old style anchor, what a great way to market our anchors and so the race began, impress all with the highest holding power.


But do we in all old generation anchor design need this extra holding power. A static pull when comparing bugle to a Rocna, the Rocna will win hands down, but do the exercise, place both anchors on the same size boats and leave them moored for a week or so, then hook onto each anchor individually and check the break out load, this Fuss is why you are very happy with your bugle.


No I am not saying the bugle is better, what I am saying is the load created from wave action, wind or tide change has more than tripled the load;’ holding power ever recorded from a static pull, so much so the anchor with a tidale wave won’t move it.


Static pulls make the new anchors stand out as superior over other well know anchor styles, but the irony of this is even with our H/H / Power sacra we never had complaints, unfortunately when the race began with the Super High holding power certification we had to join in, step up or be left behind, easy to be buried by a large company simply by them comparing holding power graphs to show there superiority, a customer will always choose the anchor giving the highest reading.


So the Question will remain do we need it, sure they produce more holding power but is that all they offer, purchase an anchor design that sets fast, works well in the change of tide, if pulled out can reset I think high holding power, preferably certified for quality assurance is ample, forget the glorified figures Fuss and stick with your Bugle, you have prooved its all you need.


Regards Rex.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Good point, I will now wait a couple of years for the next new design and enjoy twice the holding power of a Spade or Rocna.

Pete

Patience is a virtue, but the Knox anchor is claiming some impressive figures.

Jonathan

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by Delancey

Keep in mind most of these anchors are made from steel, a basic commodity traded freely throughout the world as comparable, regardless of origin. The going rate for steel in the US is around a buck a pound give or take.

Now if I take some steel and make it into a "new generation" anchor-shape and put it in a store here in the US, people will seemingly happily pay a 1,000% mark-up for that commodity. Why is that?

If I shape it into a chain-shape instead they only seem to be willing to pay a 350% mark-up. I guess humble chain isn't so glamorous, maybe we should gold plate it too? Seems like without the chain the anchor is worthless, so why all the fuss?

Prices at West Marine-
44lb Rocna/Manson Supreme $435/$475
1.5lb 3/8" G40 Chain $5.50

You have it all wrong - if you want a mark up you need to engender a bit of passion. How many chain threads have you seen with this number of posts.

Jonathan