WASI Anchor

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Yes, Conachair. It does stand to reason that surface area perpendicular to the direction of travel of an anchor through the sea bed will impede that travel. It's why they call them anchors.

Stands to reason that the sun goes round the earth as well. The universe is often much more complicated than it seems intuitively, without some nice university experimenting with as few variables as possible you don't know much for sure.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about roll bars and allow that to get in the way of standing back objectively looking at what can be reliably known.
I have no idea, if you have some data please post.

But who cares anyway. They work really well.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Perhaps the poor reviews explain its lack of popularity? Expensive + poor performance generally is not a really successful combination for a product.

English Version, All Nautictest`s, Anchoring: The Bügel Anchor, or sleepless nights in the Med

Thanks for the link. Its always valuable to hear of other experiences and that is one I have not read before.
I have seen a lot of Bugal anchors and spoken to several owners (virtually all Amels for example have this anchor) and its rare to hear a bad word, or see one poorly set when diving.
The link did contain some puzzling content. For example:

"Our own experiences were corroborated by a comprehensive test review which featured in the December 2006 edition of Yachting Monthly magazine. The Bügel anchor failed the test seabed conditions and was only deemed suitable for dragging through the ground".

The test has been widely published and its hard to imagine someone coming to that conclusion.
The Bugal did well in test holding to 4000 lb. the best anchors (Fortress, Spade, Rocna, Manson Supreme) held to 5000 lb. middle of the road (like the Sarca) held to 3000 lb and the worst performers were well under 1000lb. Read the full test and see if you agree with the conclusions.
The test can be downloaded here: (same test different magazines)
http://www.rocna.com/assets/Uploads/...ailtesting.pdf
http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/Ancho...hly%202006.pdf

There were other comments in the article that did not make sense like:
"In our experience the anchor was practically useless when used with lower than 5-7 grade chain".

Despite the shortcomings it is another piece of data to throw into the mix. Some of the conclusions I did agree with. The Bugal's weakness is soft mud where the small blade area and flat, rather than concave blade of the modern anchors means its holding is limited.

[congo]

Anchor designs,

controversy and ongoing conversation over this subject has certainly become an ongoing discussion, twenty years back when we invented the original SARCA no one was interested in anchor conversation as CQR, Bruce were the be all and end all.

When you look back at the contributions on all forums re new generation anchors comments from all make sense.

First point, if your anchor is doing the job why replace it, yes anchors that bury deep do need stronger shanks to cope with extra resistance before breaking out, yes again anchors that set deep can and do bend shanks when retrieving, difficult to work out whether during a storm or upon retrieval, probably why some have said with their bent Rocna’s , even though bent it didn’t let go, Question did it bend jurying the storm.

My answer to that is try setting a badly bent anchor.

Never the less if you are going to design an anchor to provide this deep set high hold design over conventional designs then it is up to the designer to take that into consideration when contemplating a deep set design, true in hard surfaces no anchor is going to penetrate like it does in sand or mud but there are deigns that hold very well in a variety of situations, so I suppose that is where your arguments lie.

It is difficult for me to comment as I am an anchor designer and would love to share our experiences over the last twenty two years when it comes to roll bar designs, oh yes we have redesigned the roll bar on the Sarca many many times to what we believe we have now exhausted with the actual roll bar, example roll bar performance will depend on height, roll bar thickness, the width of protrusion outside the perimeter of the fluke all have dramatic effect on clogging, penetration, strength combination of roll bar verses convex or concave fluke, plenty to troll or argue over.

But I have to support Delphin to the point where many seem to want him to produce evidence of what he believes, point being why question, does he have a hate session or there about on roll bar designs.

There are many threads on all forums reporting their Rocknas and Supremes dragging due to clogging, all the evidence you need.

I don’t totally agree with Delphin due to the experience we have had with roll bar design, but if the roll bar design is not correctally with in sink of the scenarios I have mentioned above then Delphin is most certainly right.

Here is some evidence for Dephins points; this post will obviously keep anchor discussion firmly on your agenda.

The following is ROBERTSONS independent anchor tests set out by the N.M.S.C. of Australia.

SARCA Excel to The Test - YouTube

Noelex you never cease to amaze me, all of your anchor arguments end up with you diving on them to prove them out, amazing even Delphins post on the Ultra, you stated and included a photo of a Ultra dragging, so you dived on it to find it had just left a furrow, if you come to Australia I would employ you with your enthusiasim to check anchors, further you will notice of the Sarca test you have put a link to is not the Super Sarca, Super Sarca is certified with Super High Holding power, the origional design on your link would never have recieved this certification, unfortunately it was a very early model made in N,Zealand, never laid eyes on or had any thing to do with the Sarca they tested in your link.

Regards Rex.

CEO of Anchor Right Australia

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Fair enough. However, I would also suggest that it should be self evident that the sharp triangular ballasted tip of the Spade, or the thinner downturned ballasted tip of the Ultra would present less impediment to penetration than the few score square inches of sail the hoop of a Rocna or Manson presents.

My own real-world experience is contrary to what you consider "self evident". I sold my Aluminum Spade after it failed to set and after diving on it saw that the thick toe was the reason. It was unable to achieve initial penetration to bury much surface area in a hard-packed sand bottom.

I have been back to the same location many times with a Manson Supreme, and Pre-Chinese Rocna, and both have set and buried well enough to the top of the hoop every time. The smaller toe cross-section is sharper and presents less initial resistance.

[SailFastTri]

Rex,
The aluminum Spade also has sealed lead in the tip to add weight, and your alloy Sarca design appears to suffer from the same issue - which is a triangular toe cross-section. This is thicker than other new-gen anchors and I'd be very surprised if it performed any differently (in failing to achieve initial set) than the aluminum Spade I used to own. I also think you're using my post to hijack the thread to call attention to your new product, which didn't address the point and is a no-no according to the policies of this board.

No doubt yours would hold well once set, as did my Spade, but the key point I made (which you failed to address) was not that the Aluminum Spade is a bad anchor (it's not) but that a thicker (in this case triangular) weighted-tip cross-section is more of an impediment to setting than a hoop at the aft end of a sharper and thinner blade/fluke.

[neilpride]

Is the Super Sarca a one piece construction? When we can see this anchor in the other hemisphere ? im looking to upgrade my anchor gear, i found this particular anchor here, in Cf, interesting!

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by congo

sailfasttri,

It was not my intention to high jack your thread, just though you may be interested in other designs but it seems unless it is Rocna or Manson Supreme keep it to your self, we have tried before to explain, share knowledge, give you guys other choices,resulted every time in locked threads.

As a manufacturer of anchors over twenty years Ithought my findings, anchor concepts may be interesting, I ask the Moderators to withdraw all of my recent posts as I really could not be botherd with more of the same, if you feel the alloy Excel toe is no different to the spade then you need to open your eyes, anyway it was more about how Delphins comments were addressed with such negativity.

snip
Regards Rex.

Ceo of Anchor Right Australai.

Your post was a blatant sales pitch for your alloy anchor (a brochure) and didn't answer the "point" question at all. (I think your attempt to "open our eyes" was more intent on opening people's wallets. I reported your post to the moderators, and they can make the judgment.)

My mind is open. Please explain why the tip (or toe) of the alloy Sarca would penetrate better than an aluminum Spade which also has a lead-weighted triangular geometry, and if you think it would penetrate a hard-packed bottom as well as a Manson Supreme/Rocna. Please DO get technical, because there are engineers reading who love that kind of stuff.

Edit: It appears the moderators removed that post so apparently they agree with me.

[Delfin]

Noelex - thanks for posting the link to the test results - I knew I had seen the Wasi tested somewhere and come up short but couldn't remember where I had seen it. I agree with your observation that the author of the critique of the Buegel overstated that anchor's deficiencies. It would be fair to say it was a mediocre performer, better than the CQR or Claw, not quite as good as the Delta, and nowhere near the league of the Spade, Manson, Fortress or Rocna. Just quite a bit more expensive. Mediocre, and expensive. Regarding never hearing a bad word from Wasi owners, I rarely hear a bad word from CQR owners. People tend to justify what they have and since most anchors work ok, it is understandable even if there are quantifiable differences between them in terms of performance.

Rex - you are quite right, it is unfair to lump your Super Sarca in with Manson and Rocna because the Sarca has a convex fluke that no doubt helps move material away from, rather than piling it up in front of the roll bar, and yours is quite a bit thinner, which would reduce resistance to rotation. But having said that, wouldn't you agree that your Excel is the better performer of the two? Perhaps that is asking which child is prettiest of the parent, but the Excel seems to me to exemplify the best design in the world, with its ability to slice into the seabed and well and truly bury itself the result of that design.

Sailfast - your experience with an alloy anchor does not surprise me. With the exception of the Fortress, whose very sharp tips allow it to start digging in quickly, no alloy anchor that I know of performs like the anchor it is a doppler to. The reason would seem simple - gravity works. My 80 kg Claw dug in immediately, while I would expect a 20 kg Claw to be sometimes problematic, as the one I carried for 20 years certainly was. The tip design of the Spade and Ultra isn't a problem in setting, as the recent results in Practical Sailor would seem to illustrate. In that test, a Spade and Ultra both dug in quickest and reset quickest of all anchors tested. And I don't believe I ever said that the hoop on a Manson or Rocna keeps it from burying itself at all. I merely made the obvious statement that the presence of the hoop has to present resistance to burying compared to exactly the same anchor without the hoop. How could it be otherwise?

A more interesting question is whether one would rather be anchored in a hurricane to a hoop anchor buried to the top of the hoop, or a diving anchor buried 2 feet under where the sea bed is generally denser (gravity again). Personally, I would prefer the latter, as does the Coast Guard who carries the diving Fortress on the cutters they run here in the Pac NW.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Delfin

A more interesting question is whether one would rather be anchored in a hurricane to a hoop anchor buried to the top of the hoop, or a diving anchor buried 2 feet under where the sea bed is generally denser (gravity again). Personally, I would prefer the latter, as does the Coast Guard who carries the diving Fortress on the cutters they run here in the Pac NW.

As long as each held, there is no difference. The hoop prevents burying more simply because the forces required to cause it to bury more do not exceed the forces required to cause it to move at all.

In other words, the boat is anchored.

We have had our Rocna buried several feet below the top of the hoop in mud and sand, so it does dig down to the proper strata necessary to hold the boat.

The possible failure mode would be deep weeds, where the hoop anchor holds the boat, but the weed roots fail and the whole thing unseats. It is hypothetically plausible that a non-hoop anchor may have dug down below the weed roots before holding the boat.

But that is an extreme and rare example.

Mark

[congo]

Hi Delfin,

Thanks for clarifying concave convex and your kind words,yes the Excel will allways disappear taking down the chain with it, glad to see you have opened your eyes and can understand the Excel has extended cutting edges with a chiseling flanged point,the Super sarca will achieve deep penetration too but this wont be seen so easily with a static pull, it tends to work its way down over a short time, the Super Sarca has an impecable reputation that has with stood its popularity over now twenty years.

Sailfasttri,twenty three years in anchor design, surley we would not survive if we were telling porkies, we have a team of engineers that work with us on a regular basis that specialize in physics, like I said if you cannot spot the difference between the Spade and the alloy Excel, sorry if I affended you it wasn't meant, I could not care a less re opening someones wallet as you put it, just thought you may be intersted in a new design.

Regards Rex.

CEO of Anchor Right.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by colemj

As long as each held, there is no difference. The hoop prevents burying more simply because the forces required to cause it to bury more do not exceed the forces required to cause it to move at all.

In other words, the boat is anchored.

We have had our Rocna buried several feet below the top of the hoop in mud and sand, so it does dig down to the proper strata necessary to hold the boat.

The possible failure mode would be deep weeds, where the hoop anchor holds the boat, but the weed roots fail and the whole thing unseats. It is hypothetically plausible that a non-hoop anchor may have dug down below the weed roots before holding the boat.

But that is an extreme and rare example.

Mark

Just curious, but do you think your Rocna, once it was set, bury itself more or less deeply without the hoop?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Just curious, but do you think your Rocna, once it was set, bury itself more or less deeply without the hoop?

Just curious, but do you think a rocna will do its job of keeping the boat where you left it better without the hoop?

[JK n Smitty]

Originally Posted by colemj

Hmmm. Not too many. I think the hoop was added to the Buegel because it was necessary, but added to the Rocna and Supreme mostly because of patent issues with the Spade.

Mark

Sorry. That is just wrong. The spade has a thicker, weighted tip to make sure it rights itself and sets and the rocna and supreme use the bar for this purpose. Have you even looked at these anchors side by side?

[colemj]

Originally Posted by JK n Smitty

Sorry. That is just wrong. The spade has a thicker, weighted tip to make sure it rights itself and sets and the rocna and supreme use the bar for this purpose. Have you even looked at these anchors side by side?

I own one of each.

Do a search of this site and you will find past posts from the inventors of each of these anchors discussing the very fact I pointed out.

Mark

[bobconnie]

If all you guys want is depth of set, go back to a real Danforth ! Nothing go's deeper, or sets harder! And if the wind don't go 180 on ya you will never move !! All a fortress is, is an aluminum danforth! it's just lighter for a given size, which I cant see as a good thing ! LOL (heavy is better lol) Of course Im old and have hung in some pretty big blows, and never had my well set danforth move !! Just my 2 cents