Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[JonJo]

Shas Cho,

A reason Spade would not be included in tests in Australia is that there is no dsitributor. Spade anchors are quite expensive to start with but to ship one in is very expensive - and for the local market the comparison is academic.

But I am with you, I think its a great anchor - in both its alloy (that we use) and gal versions.

Jonathan

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I do not believe it is appropriate for an independent standard to be tested using equipment that has been designed and produced by the manufacturer of the anchor that is applying for certification.
You asked for ways the standard could be improved and I believe maintaining a greater independence of testing and measuring equipment is one of them.

I understand you don't see a problem, or conflict of interest, in this situation, which is fine. It is not the major problem with the standard and I think we should agree to disagree on this subject.

I do not see a problem because I have seen the equipment.

Basically its a 4 sided 'A' frame (with a cage for operator and equipment). At one end, the back, is attached the winch cable, at the other end, the front, is attached the load cell and then rode. The rode/load cell attachment point is such to give a specific rode to depth (or height) ratio. The equipment is designed to travel over the seabed when pulled.

Frankly I fail to see how my building the same kit, or you building the same kit (or a variation on the design) or anyone else in any part of the world is going to have any impact whatsover on the results. All it does is safely contain a man and recorder and ensure the scope stays constant.

Please explain your fears as to how cleverly Anchor Right use this bit of kit to manipulate results to a degree and to their advantage such that you think the results are invalid and why Robertsons, the NMSC and AMSA are so gullible to not see through AR's smokle and mirrors.

Your judgement looks a bit flawed.

Jonathan

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

That's a pretty impressive demonstration.
It's interesting that both anchors set immediately
and that the boom remains quite balanced
until they have dragged for some distance.
This is not easy to see,
as in the first test the boom is hidden by a close-up of the trench
until they have dragged a considerable way
and in the second, not shown at all
until it begins to tip toward the Super Sarca.
For the first few metres the bar remains level.

Since the Rocna is claimed by users and testers
to be resistant to dragging, though,
the real question is not how hard it drags
but how well it resists breaking out in the first place.
On that basis the anchors appear to be identical.
Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, right?

Interesting stuff.

Shas

Agreed, the sarca does seem like an excellent anchor but the videos show resistance whilst dragging, not static holding power. Performance while dragging is still of interest and the sarca seems to do very well but static performance is also of interest. The beam test might not be an ideal test of static performance as the sarca seems to take a moment longer to set.
The very suspicious might wonder why the beam is hidden at the start of the videos.

But all very interesting

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Bottom line, the testing apparatus developed by AR seems to be a way to provide good side by side testing of different anchors in as unbiased way as I have seen.

I quite agree,
and I have certainly not criticised the method.
I just don't see what I'm told I'm supposed to see.
I see two anchors setting identically,
resisting breakout identically,
and dragging identically for about two metres.
Then the Super Sarca suddenly begins to out-drag the Rocna.
So the SSarca wins the drag race
while the two anchors are equally effective
at setting and staying put.

[congo]

Originally Posted by noelex 77
I do not believe it is appropriate for an independent standard to be tested using equipment that has been designed and produced by the manufacturer of the anchor that is applying for certification.
You asked for ways the standard could be improved and I believe maintaining a greater independence of testing and measuring equipment is one of them.

I understand you don't see a problem, or conflict of interest, in this situation, which is fine. It is not the major problem with the standard and I think we should agree to disagree on this subject.

Rex wrote:

Well knoelex Fortress devised their own proof testing machine, any classification will accept their results, MUIR winches have Lloyds come in to witness their proof testing, we have had Lloyds and survey officers turn up to both field and proof testing.

No classification authority requires them to proof and field test, in most situations you will find all testing is witnessed by, not carried out by the various classification Authorities themselves, you may find Manson sublet and were involved themselves on the tug boats for Lloyds approval, you hire the tug, you supply the labour and you pay for the witnessing officer regardless of classification Authorities, I have been told, needs checking that Rocna hired the tug for Rhina certification.

Sure they will do it for you if happy to unload a pocket full of money, like I said you are very hollow on this subject and should do some homework, it is disappointing for a Moderator of your following to give advice before checking it thoroughly, God knows you have done that with Anchor Right Australia and come up with nothing untoward of what we preach, we let it all hang out, no secrets for this we are absolute targets for moderators on the prowl who don’t know their feet from their fingers.

The peoples names you find on the N.M.S.C. are no different as to how classification rules are established by all classification societies, their rules are derived from much input from all, Marine engineers, commercial operators the list goes on, even good old Anchor Right Australia in our case, the N.M.S.C., we are extremely proud to have been selected among many for what the N.M.S.C.is all about.

Yes Shas, its a real pity Icouldn't hide the fudged videos, never mind I will employ Mantus next time for a few tips.

Regards Rex.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Please explain your fears as to how cleverly Anchor Right use this bit of kit to manipulate results to a degree and to their advantage such that you think the results are invalid and why Robertsons, the NMSC and AMSA are so gullible to not see through AR's smokle and mirrors.

Your judgement looks a bit flawed.

OK, let's take a simple example, adjusting just one parameter. The rate of pull. We are both agreed that the rate of pull effects the results. Through anchor testing you discover your anchor does better against the opposition when the rate of pull is fast (or slow). Such differences are likely given the different designs (for example convex verses the concave opposition).

Naturally you would set up your TATS machine and write the specifications so the rate of pull matches where your anchor does best. The same can be done with other parameters. There is nothing illegal, or even dishonest about this. A manufacturer would be silly not to select test parameters that give his anchors the best results.

By controlling, designing and specifying the equipment the manufacturer has the ability to manipulate to test parameters to most favourably suit their anchor.

Standards should be above all independent. By using equipment designed, built and specified by the anchor manufacturer whose anchors are being tested some of this independence is lost.

I don't think the results are invalid. The test standard for SHHP is low and as I have stated I have no doubt the anchors would have met this holding requirement with different test equipment. If we have a more realistic standard (which I hope we will one day) we need test parameters (such as the example of the rate of pull) that are set by the standards organisation not the anchor manufacturer under test. This is how good independent standards are achieved.

[JonJo]

What Noelex is suggesting it;

That AR's rig is a sham, somehow it tweaks their anchors and only their anchors. The results that AR post on their website are incorrect and, possibly, the SHHP certification awarded by AMSA and supervised by Robertsons is invalid.

This is a serious allegation.

Noelex, you obviously have some knowledge that should be made public. Anchor makers have been prone to 'gilding the lily' and I am sure (given your credentials) you have soemthing to substantiate your fears.

Please divulge the information such that redress can commence.

Jonathan

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by congo

in most situations you will find all testing is witnessed by, not carried out by the various classification Authorities themselves, you may find Manson sublet and were involved themselves on the tug boats for Lloyds approval, you hire the tug, you supply the labour and you pay for the witnessing officer regardless of classification Authorities, I have been told, needs checking that Rocna hired the tug for Rhina certification.

Precisely my point. Manufacturers should not be allowed to select and hire the tug and captain involved in testing.

Good standards involve the manufacturer submitting their product (or ideally it is purchased at random) to the testing authorities who carry out the test independently. The manufacturer is not involved.

This is done with other standards and it would be an improvement if this model was adopted for anchor testing.

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Shas Cho,

A reason Spade would not be included in tests in Australia is that there is no dsitributor. Spade anchors are quite expensive...

That's reasonable, Jonathan,
but Rex says he *has* done "quite a bit of testing with spade...."
He just hasn't posted the results
because the Spade folks weren't abusing him.
And here was me thinking it was
because the spade "out does the Sarca".

But I am with you, I think its a great anchor - in both its alloy (that we use) and gal versions.

Yep.
I remember the first time I saw a Spade.
So many cruisers from the olden days
waxed rhapsodical about their beloved CQRs,
and when I found a lovely used 45lb CQR
I snatched it up, confident I was doing the right thing.

But I was raised on the farm,
and I knew darned well that plows are designed,
not to HOLD in soil,
but to slice through the soil
with the least possible resistance!
Duh!

When I saw that first Spade the penny dropped
and I realised the obvious error in my thinking.
I didn't order one for another year or so,
not wanting to fool myself with another "obvious" solution,
but after reading all I could find
and talking to sailors and watching boats
I forked out the price of a year's insurance
and have never made a better purchase.

The amazing thing is that generations of mariners
failed to see the obvious as completely as I did.

- Shas

[congo]

Knoelex Wrote:

I don't think the results are invalid. The test standard for SHHP is low and as I have stated I have no doubt the anchors would have met this holding requirement with different test equipment. If we have a more realistic standard (which I hope we will one day) we need test parameters (such as the example of the rate of pull) that are set by the standards organisation not the anchor manufacturer under test. This is how good independent standards are achieved.


Rex wrote:
Once gain Noelex you have no idea of what you are on about, reed my previous post, all anchors when actual field test results were collected, each anchor tested individually, not on the boom.

Soil samples inspected, each anchor put through the same tests in a meter of water, clearly visible for all of whom attend, the load cell punched out the figures, then collected by Robertson strait from the T.A.T.S. machine, graphed and then sent to us.

See these graphs on our web site, they also eco the results from the visual you see with the boom test.

I suppose if I keep at it Knoelex you may just learn something to qualify your comments on Anchor Right for a change.

Shas as I said before, the spade out performed the sarca, the Excel was a very different result, never mind carry on.

Regards Rex.

[Shas Cho]

Well, that was disappointing.
My hydro generator switched itself off just as I hit the 'submit' button.
I had a slight hope that the info might have survived, but no such luck.
So you get the abbreviated second iteration.

Rex wrote:
we have done quite a bit of testing with spade and have found it to be far superior to Rocna and Manson, out does the Sarca but not the Excel, why no vide on these tests, well at that time spade was not involved in a campaign to discredit Anchor Right Australia.

I'm delighted to hear that the Spade outperformed the Super Sarca.
My confidence in it is higher than ever!
But are you saying that you broadcast head-to-head comparisons with anchors
only if their makers are hostile to you?
Really?

Rex wrote:
Can you see those tests,

I can see the tests Delfin posted.
Very nice.
I still can't find them on your web page, but...
The Super Sarca and Rocna appear to set equally well
and to resist dragging equally well.
After about two metres of dragging, though,
the SSarca suddenly begins to win the contest.

The video emphasises the trench left by the Rocna
(excuse me; the "Challenger")
but of course that only applies to a situation
in which the anchor is dragging.
Not a common situation, according to other tests
and the testimonies of those who use the Rocna.

I question your assertion
that the SSarca is less disruptive of the environment.
If neither anchor drags,
and in normal use they are not expected to,
the concave anchor does leave a divot behind.
When dragging, one leaves a trench
while the other leaves a less visible but still real line
of compacted sand the depth and width of the anchor,
plus a bit on either side.
Any grass or sea worms are sliced off and left in compacted sand,
any hole-dwelling bennies or eels are trapped in their dens.
Whether one result is more harmful than the other
can only be ascertained by careful study over a fairly long term.
That would be expensive, too.
Especially if it had to be a "certified" test.

In your narration of the video you say,
"This challenger claims to be the highest holding power on the market
although there is no evidence of certification."

This is a non-sequiter.
Certification has no impact on holding power.
A D8 Caterpillar buried in the sea floor
would provide enormous resistance to movement,
but it would not be certificated as an anchor.

Rex wrote:
... the Tsunami that hit Phuket , three boats survived on Sarca’s whilst many were washed out to see, many smashed on the rocks, non with the Sarcas moved

Shas responded:
Do you actually know that?
You know the type of anchor in use
by every boat that was washed out to sea
or smashed on the rocks,
and that not one was using a Sarca?

Rex Wrote:
Well I suppose you could be right but it would be highly unlikely...

That's more what I figured.
I know you hate to have your assertions challenged, Rex,
but how would you respond if, say, the maker of the Rocna
had posted,
"Not one boat using a Rocna
was blown off station during hurricane Katrina"?
I'm thinking you would not let such a claim slide.

Rex wrote:
Would have a non-certified anchor achieved this...

Whether it would or not,
the certification would have had exactly nothing to do
with the holding power of the anchor.
Triplicate forms and hyphenated decals from bureaucrats
provide neither tensile strength, penetration, nor friction.

Rex wrote:
Well Shas, Sounds like you answer all of your own questions

You leave me no choice, Rex.

Rex wrote:
...each model tested certified as we grew them.

Exactly.
The certification did not develop the anchors,
the testing simply provided feedback
during the evolution of the design.
Certification is necessarily a post hoc process.

Rex wrote:
Quite amazing that that you could not have worked this one out for yourself, try driving a back hoe into a meter of water on a sandy or muddy beach, you would need a back hoe to retrieve the back hoe.

I may be stupid, Rex,
but I'm clever enough to keep the hoe on dry land
and use a longer rode.

Rex wrote:
I think you have squeezed enough juice out of what you think is a lemon, give it a break get get back to BIB.

We're still on topic.
Development and testing are important parts of the conversation.
If you don't like lemonade,
don't toss lemons around in public.

I like your anchors,
I like your tests, as far as they go,
and I have said so more than once.
I just don't ignore unsupported claims and advertising rhetoric.

I don't know why you like to position yourself
as the persecuted underdog, Rex,
but that's not coming from me.
I'm just a guy trying to learn all I can about anchors.

- Shas

[Shas Cho]

Shas as I said before, the spade out performed the sarca, the Excel was a very different result, never mind carry on.

Yes, you did.
And I misquoted you...
how?

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

Yes, you did.
And I misquoted you...
how?

Oh, now I see it.
You know, Rex, sarcasm and snide comments
are not a very effective way to communicate.
And naming your two anchors with such similar labels
probably makes all kinds of sense to you,
because you have lived with them so long.
But to mere consumers it can be a bit confusing.

I confess-
After writing "Super Sarca" repeatedly
while discussing the video excerpts of the tests,
I failed to leave off the "Super"
when referring to *other* tests.

-Shas

[Shas Cho]

Yes Shas, its a real pity Icouldn't hide the fudged videos

I'm sure you'll get there with practice.

[congo]

Shas wrote:
I may be stupid, Rex,
but I'm clever enough to keep the hoe on dry land
and use a longer rode.

Rex Wrote:

With a comment like that I am not surprised you condem your self, you had better read over that post agian.
Settle down Shas, it an anchor thread, you will break the record if you keep this up.

You guys continue to beat the drum; filter all comment, funny, yet over all of the threads you have made no dint in our credibility, you must be hearing a rumble as more and more of these Excels condescend on your territory, the Anchor Right Gang is growing, soon you will be counting Excels instead of sheep.

Ask me something that I can answer that will give me credibility? You may be able to do something for me and prove your above statement wrong?

My advice is give Anchor Right A break and get back to anchors.

Regards Rex.