Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[Cotemar]

Really, That Practical Sailor data seems to be skewed to favor the Convex anchor when in fact all the other un-skewed data supports Flat or Concave flukes.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Really, That Practical Sailor data seems to be skewed to favor the Convex anchor when in fact all the other un-skewed data supports Flat or Concave flukes.

Just curious, but do you read the data you post? The convex Hydrobubble is noted in your results to be the, or a top performer in every test it was included in.

So rather than a presumption that the PS test (and others) are part of a conspiracy, or perhaps the work of a crypto "team Anchorite" organization, the results may simply be data disproving your point.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

You need to do more research. In this test, a convex anchor showed similar performance to the convex designs, with the ballasted toe Spade outperforming the roll bar anchors. http://www.newmorning.info/page65/fi...hor%20test.pdf

Delfin I am not sure of your point. The top anchors in this test that you quote behind the Fortress were all concave anchors of the Spade, Rocna and Manson Supreme. The only other concave anchor in the test was the quirky Oceane (which was erratic but overall in the middle of the pack) The convex anchors all did significantly worse than the concave anchors. Surely this supports my conclusion:

Originally Posted by noelex 77

You must be reading different anchor tests.
I think the anchor test have shown overwhelmingly the superiority of the concave anchors and the (flat) aluminium Fortress.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Jim, why does Spade pour the lead in after galvanizing? Why not just pour the lead in, box it off like the stainless Ultra and then galvanize? Bit confused on that, since one of the complaints leveled against the Spade is that you can't re-galvanize easily because the lead melts and has to be recovered and re-poured, or so I think I've been told.

Well, I'm not sure about that issue. I suspect that it has to do with the difference in coefficients of expansion between lead and steel. lead being nearly three times higher (29 vs ~10.8 ppm/deg C). Unlike a gas filled cavity, the pressure which could be built up by an expanding solid in a sealed container is quite high and could indeed burst things apart.

Lead is pretty malleable, and I've wondered if simply leaving some head space in the ballast chamber in the anchor would prevent destructive forces building up. However, I suspect that some wily anchor builder (say CQR for instance) would have tried this out at some time, and since we don't see the practice in use, I'd guess that it fails to work! I know that my friends with CQR anchors go through the removal/replacement of lead exercise each time the anchor is regalvo'd, and it is a PITA for them.

Cheers,

Jim

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Just curious, but do you read the data you post? The convex Hydrobubble is noted in your results to be the, or a top performer in every test it was included in.

So rather than a presumption that the PS test (and others) are part of a conspiracy, or perhaps the work of a crypto "team Anchorite" organization, the results may simply be data disproving your point.

Do you have a convex Hydrobubble? They may make them, but no one is buying them.

Do you really want a balloon making your anchor lighter and also having such a large area as to not let it penetrate deep into the sea bed. Great idea on paper, but I do not anchor with paper.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Delfin I am not sure of your point. The top anchors in this test that you quote behind the Fortress were all concave anchors of the Spade, Rocna and Manson Supreme. The only other concave anchor in the test was the quirky Oceane (which was erratic but overall in the middle of the pack) The convex anchors all did significantly worse than the concave anchors. Surely this supports my conclusion:

No, the Hydrobubble is a convex anchor. Its performance in the first study was the same as the Manson and the Rocna in one location, but worse in another.

In the second study, the Excel and Kobra were deemed superior to the concave group, if only marginally so.

In the PS test, the convex anchors (Excel, Kobra) beat out the concave anchors in one seabed, and lost slightly in another.

My point was that the assertion that all convex anchors are always inferior in tests compared to convex is clearly wrong, as these tests indicate, so no, your conclusion is not supported by the data.

We can agree, nor have I ever doubted, the superior holding capacity of the Fortress, which is why I carry their Guardian as a back up and supplemental storm anchor.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Do you have a convex Hydrobubble? They may make them, but no one is buying them.

Do you really want a balloon making your anchor lighter and also having such a large area as to not let it penetrate deep into the sea bed. Great idea on paper, but I do not anchor with paper.

Cotemar, you've made certain statements about incomprehensible "problem bends" and the superiority of concave anchors. These statements are wrong based on the data you yourself have posted.

Whatever the merits or lack thereof of the Hydrobubble, your statement that it couldn't penetrate into the seabed is also clearly wrong, again on the basis of the data you offer to support your opinion.

The best convex anchor on the market appears to be the Excel, but I hesitate to point you to the extensive comparison testing done by Anchorite on this design vs. Manson or Rocna since I realize how sensitive a subject this is for you. But they might be worth a look if you are interested in actual data rather than your own drawings.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Well, I'm not sure about that issue. I suspect that it has to do with the difference in coefficients of expansion between lead and steel. lead being nearly three times higher (29 vs ~10.8 ppm/deg C). Unlike a gas filled cavity, the pressure which could be built up by an expanding solid in a sealed container is quite high and could indeed burst things apart.

Lead is pretty malleable, and I've wondered if simply leaving some head space in the ballast chamber in the anchor would prevent destructive forces building up. However, I suspect that some wily anchor builder (say CQR for instance) would have tried this out at some time, and since we don't see the practice in use, I'd guess that it fails to work! I know that my friends with CQR anchors go through the removal/replacement of lead exercise each time the anchor is regalvo'd, and it is a PITA for them.

Cheers,

Jim

That makes sense.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

No, the Hydrobubble is a convex anchor. Its performance in the first study was the same as the Manson and the Rocna in one location, but worse in another.

So behind the aluminium Fortress the next three top anchors were concave Spade,concave Rocna and concave Manson Supreme (of only four concave anchors in the test). The next best anchor was the unconventional convex Hydrobubble (with an aluminium shank) which only beat the one remaining concave anchor (the quirky Oceane).

From these results you conclude concave and convex anchors are equally good

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The best convex anchor on the market appears to be the Excel

Really, you told me yesterday that the best convex anchor on the market is a Kobra. What will your best anchor be tomorrow?

Your anchor team at least has a good sense of humor.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Really, you told me yesterday that the best convex anchor on the market is a Kobra. What will your best anchor be tomorrow?

Your anchor team at least has a good sense of humor.

Provide the quote where I say the best anchor is a Kobra, You won't, of course, because like "problem bends" that quote only exists in your head.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

So behind the aluminium Fortress the next three top anchors were concave Spade, Rocna and Manson Supreme (of only four concave anchors in the test). The next best anchor was the unconventional convex Hydrobubble (with an aluminium shank) which only beat the one remaining concave anchor (the quirky Oceane).

From these results you conclude concave and convex anchors are equally good

And I thought you didn't believe one study could tell us anything. Now I'm confused. The convex Hydrobubble tests better in some, and slightly worse in other tests. My point has nothing to do with they Hydrobubble, but merely that your statement

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I cannot think of single anchor test where the convex anchors have done anywhere near as well as the concave.

is wrong, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

You see, this is why anchor threads become so tedious. People make declarative statements like yours above, or

Originally Posted by Cotemar

I Would recommend a new generation anchor that is either flat or concave as the convex ones have a problem bend that lets the horses run a bit.

without providing the slightest empirical basis for the conjecture. When others who have a great deal of experience testing anchors (JonJo), or building and testing them (Congo) try to correct the record, they are ignored, or their integrity impugned. I've posted objective test results that disprove statements like yours and Cotemar's, but such data rolls off like water off a duck's back.

Your opinion and Cotemar's is that concave anchors are superior (always, you say) than convex designs because of a "problem bend" (so says Cotemar). My position is that ample evidence exists in objective tests to show that none of what you say is true.

To each his own opinion, I guess.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Or, if one isn't interested in JonJo's objective testing, what with him being part of Team Sarca and all , then perhaps these tests from Yachting Monthly can help some to calibrate your comments:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...56343320,d.cGE

Originally Posted by Delfin

Just one opinion, but the perfect anchor is one that will dive and bury itself, which lets out hoop style anchors simply because the hoop will reduce the anchor's ability to dive.

Makes me wonder why you link to a test that says:
"... without digging in deeply and disappearing like some of the other anchors we tested ( The Spade, Bugel and Manson)"

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Anders

Makes me wonder why you link to a test that says:
"... without digging in deeply and disappearing like some of the other anchors we tested ( The Spade, Bugel and Manson)"

Answer the question yourself - if you removed the vertical hoop of a Manson after it had begun to dig in, would that hoopless Manson dive deeper than a Manson next to it that still had the hoop? Clearly the answer is yes since the hoop has to be dragged through the sea bed horizontal to the plane of movement. This is such a simple point, I wonder it is so hard to grasp.

Incidentally, I have never said that hoop style anchors aren't fine pieces of equipment. I have merely said that based on the test results available, they have certain disadvantages that make them a less desirable choice than others. Attempts to make blanket statements about all convex anchors or any other design features as well imaginary design problems deserve to be rebutted, if one has the patience to do so.

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Your opinion and Cotemar's is that concave anchors are superior (always, you say) than convex designs because of a "problem bend" (so says Cotemar). My position is that ample evidence exists in objective tests to show that none of what you say is true.

To each his own opinion, I guess.

If we did our own anchor testing and posted it here, it would be very bias toward our thinking.
The Practical Sailor anchor data is clearly swayed by the same writer that tries to sway us here.

We just post un-biased anchor data from all over the world and from un-biased testers and writers.
When you look at our data you do have to open one or both eyes as the top rated anchor are the ones with higher bars. You tend to only see the lower rated ones on the charts. We here cannot help you with poor eye sight as the data we are giving is clear as can be.

Your conspiracy theory always takes us to one anchor and one location that the majority of us do not want to be.