Videos of Anchors Setting

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by GRIT

Thanks Panope, for the chart and the video info.

Your work on this subject is well appreciated. I think it can be safely said that your testing and presentations have become a prime resource, for those shopping for anchors, and for those of us interested in anchor performance.

Cheers.
Paul.

Agreed. This collection of testing is probably one of the most detailed and useful that's been done anywhere.

[Panope]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=035N1wazjwM

[Muaddib1116]

Hi Steve, thanks for this new video.

Looking at the assembly diagram on Mantus' website, it looks like the aluminum bushing either sits in the hole in the shank, or it presses the shank over to one side as you tighten the assembly down. You mentioned that the gap around the shank in the fluke slot might allow mud to be washed out more easily, is the shank free to wobble a bit in there when the it's all assembled? or is the shank pinned tightly to one side by the aluminum bushing?

Also, for the galvanized version that you have, is the bolt/washers/nut/pin stainless steel or galvanized steel?

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Muaddib1116

Hi Steve, thanks for this new video.

Looking at the assembly diagram on Mantus' website, it looks like the aluminum bushing either sits in the hole in the shank, or it presses the shank over to one side as you tighten the assembly down. You mentioned that the gap around the shank in the fluke slot might allow mud to be washed out more easily, is the shank free to wobble a bit in there when the it's all assembled? or is the shank pinned tightly to one side by the aluminum bushing?

Also, for the galvanized version that you have, is the bolt/washers/nut/pin stainless steel or galvanized steel?

When the bolt is tightened, side-to-side wobbling disappears (bushing presses shank to one side), but a "fore and aft" movement (rotation around the bolt) remains. So, yes, I believe that simultaneous wiggling and rinsing should be good for keeping connection clean(er).

Bolt/washers/nut/cotter pin are all stainless. Bushing is aluminum.

I would be happy with a galvanized bolt (especially if it had a smooth shank), but a call to Mantus might be good to get their thoughts. They do use galvanized bolts exclusively on the (galvanized) M1.

Steve

[Muaddib1116]

Thanks Steve. Is the shank then noticeably off to one side? Does it remain inline with the center of the fluke? Do you think you could post a couple pictures showing how off center it is and how big a gap is left in the fluke socket? Thanks!

For your corrosion criteria, do you not consider a stainless steel to galvanized steel interaction to be dissimilar metals?

[sv_pelagia]

Steve, Could you please clarify explicitly your ratings. For some a rating of "1 to 5" suggests 1 is best and 5 is worst. For others, it may be the opposite. (I think you suggest 5 is best.)

In other words, is the rating "5 stars" or a rank of 5?

Of course, an average rating ranging from 2.8 to 4.3 might also be interpreted by some as not much difference overall.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Muaddib1116

Thanks Steve. Is the shank then noticeably off to one side? Does it remain inline with the center of the fluke? Do you think you could post a couple pictures showing how off center it is and how big a gap is left in the fluke socket? Thanks!

For your corrosion criteria, do you not consider a stainless steel to galvanized steel interaction to be dissimilar metals?

The amount that the fluke is "off center" is negligible. Maybe less than 1 mm. No issue in my opinion.

Stainless steel and Zinc (galvanizing) is certainly dissimilar. But, my feeling is the bolt is a tiny component compared to the whole anchor and therefore not likely to "eat" the galvanizing rapidly (I could be wrong). That said, a switch to a Galvanized bolt might be a good thing.

My "no dissimilar metals" comment was directed more toward the Spade anchor and it's massive blob of lead. I should have made that clear.

Steve

[Panope]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

Steve, Could you please clarify explicitly your ratings. For some a rating of "1 to 5" suggests 1 is best and 5 is worst. For others, it may be the opposite. (I think you suggest 5 is best.)

In other words, is the rating "5 stars" or a rank of 5?

Of course, an average rating ranging from 2.8 to 4.3 might also be interpreted by some as not much difference overall.

1 = low
5 = high

These ratings are a simple ranking between anchors tested. It is very difficult to give accurate, hard data about anchor tests. Even simple holding power numbers are hard to pin down due to the anchors motion. Things like resetting ability and veering are even more problematic.

One will need to go back and study my results carefully (or just ask me ) if they want a clearer picture of just "how much" better an anchor may be.

[Muaddib1116]

Originally Posted by Panope

The amount that the fluke is "off center" is negligible. Maybe less than 1 mm. No issue in my opinion.

Stainless steel and Zinc (galvanizing) is certainly dissimilar. But, my feeling is the bolt is a tiny component compared to the whole anchor and therefore not likely to "eat" the galvanizing rapidly (I could be wrong). That said, a switch to a Galvanized bolt might be a good thing.

My "no dissimilar metals" comment was directed more toward the Spade anchor and it's massive blob of lead. I should have made that clear.

Steve

Great, thanks!

[sv_pelagia]

Originally Posted by Panope

1 = low
5 = high

These ratings are a simple ranking between anchors tested. ]

If "simple ranking" (your words), this would (should) mean "1" is best.

But is that what you mean?

[whereas "rating" can be interpreted either way, "ranking" is always: low number (1) is better/preferable than high number (5)... so still unclear to me what you intend]

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

If "simple ranking" (your words), this would (should) mean "1" is best.

But is that what you mean?

[whereas "rating" can be interpreted either way, "ranking" is always: low number (1) is better/preferable than high number (5)... so still unclear to me what you intend]

Here, I’ll help. 5/5 is the best rating. 5 stars. Etc.
1 /5 is the worst. 1 star.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

If "simple ranking" (your words), this would (should) mean "1" is best.

But is that what you mean?

[whereas "rating" can be interpreted either way, "ranking" is always: low number (1) is better/preferable than high number (5)... so still unclear to me what you intend]

It’s entirely clear to me that bigger numbers stand for better performance in his table of testing results. Also, if you somehow missed that, you might have noticed that the anchors are listed in order of their average score with the best performing anchor at the top and the worst performing at the bottom. I hope this helps clear up your confusion.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

If "simple ranking" (your words), this would (should) mean "1" is best.

But is that what you mean?

[whereas "rating" can be interpreted either way, "ranking" is always: low number (1) is better/preferable than high number (5)... so still unclear to me what you intend]

Is a 1.0 GPA or a 4.0 GPA better in school?
Simple enough.

[sv_pelagia]

"Is a 1.0 GPA or a 4.0 GPA better in school?
Simple enough."

Agreed for GPA. But a ranking of 1 in School is better than a ranking of 5....



Yes, I understood because I watched many of the videos. But the term "ranking" should not be used when referring to the ratings ("1" is not the rank"), especially in combination with "high" and "low".

Perhaps NO ONE is confused - - that's good -- but I wonder about someone in the future doing a search on this topic?

No criticism meant. Was only suggesting more clarity.

[Muaddib1116]

I think most people are finding it pretty clear.