Quote:
Originally Posted by Muaddib1116
Quoting your own company's article as a source... not overly convincing.
I've wondered about this since Izikalvo first started making this argument a couple years ago to market his anchors, especially after Steve on Panope tested the Viking against similar sized anchors and it did really well. My only conclusion is that he sees a relatively saturated market, and given the visible similarities between his Viking and the Mantus M1 (especially when he first introduced the Viking, it seemed like a straight clone, until you looked closer), that he is trying to disrupt the market and differentiate his brand by pushing a message about smaller, lighter anchors.
If you've watched as many of Steve's anchor testing videos as I have, it becomes very clear that larger, heavier anchors of the same design perform better than their smaller counterparts in any given seabed. Yes, a smaller very good design can perform better than a large bad design, as Steve has shown upon occasion. I mean, that's the entire point of searching for the best anchor, right? If you can find an anchor that outperforms all others for the weight, then you get that anchor in the same weight as your old one, then you have a much better anchor. Why would you want to bottleneck your ground tackle by a performance standard, rather than a weight/size standard? Get the best anchor you can find, in the biggest size you can handle.
The argument that you can't set an anchor too large for your boat is pretty much nonsense. The only legitimate issue is, as Jedi said, having a fluke remain above the seabed and catching the rode on a wind shift. In that case, I would argue that you should probably reduce anchor size, or use a design that has less of a chance of catching anything, like a non-rollbar modern design.
|
You seem to have successfully argued against yourself and you are saying almost the exact same thing as we have said.
You are saying that a non-roll bar design will set more deeply and have less chance for the rode to catch protuberances. I fail to see the logic - non roll bar anchors have as many protuberances as roll bar anchors. If you want to stop your rode self tripping the anchor - have an anchor you can bury, easily.
The Viking Anchor buries easily because it is made exclusively from High Tensile
steel, the fluke plate is thinner and the anchor buries completely more easily. It has long been known that the thickness of the
steel used to make the shank of an anchor significantly impacts anchor performance and in the last 2 or 3 decades anchor shanks have become much thinner as they have been made from HT steels. We have carried this proven technology further and use HT steel in the fluke - without sacrificing strength - and the anchor buries more easily. Additionally, because the steel is thinner in the fluke, (which is a major part of the anchor), is lighter and you can use a lighter anchor with the same hold, the surface area is not reduced just the cross-sectional area of the steel plate.
Our simple technology is to choose steel appropriate for the design without compromising strength. We gain hold, because the anchor sets more deeply - for a given tension in the rode. It's the hold that determines size recommendations, not its weight.
"Quoting your own company's article as a source... not overly convincing". maybe the following will convince you:
Start with looking at this article from Practical Sailor
https://www.practical-sailor.com/sai...anchor-holding
The
work clearly defines that shallow set anchors are more susceptible to yawing. There is only one anchor that sets shallow, so what the
work underlines is that a 'shallow set' anchor will be susceptible to yawing. Having an anchor that is too large also exacerbates the issue. But a shallow set anchor is not only a
danger if there is a change of tide but is also a
danger if the wind or the yachting is yawing. Very simply a shallow set anchor is simply less secure than one that is deeply set.
To consider shallow set anchors look at this Practical Sailor article
https://www.practical-sailor.com/sai...-anchor-angles
It bears mentioning that articles in Practical Sailor are written by knowledgeable authors, their work is edited by journalists with the highest reputation in the
marine publishing industry and all articles are also vetted by the Technical Editor. Any bias or data that is invalid is immediately removed. The point about the shallow set of
Mantus is simply illustrated by viewing underwater pictures of a set Mantus, see Noelex thread ‘Pictures of Anchors setting’ - virtually every picture of his Mantus illustrates the shallow set.
Much work has been conducted on fluke/seabed angle and this is but one graph illustrating the impact shallow setting has on hold:
See photo Nr.1
You will note that a fluke/seabed angle of 17 degrees has approximately 50% of the hold of an anchor with a 30-degree seabed/fluke angle. If you make a
google search you will find that the US
Navy Research Dept in
California has done similar work and come to the self same conclusions.
Why does an anchor have a poor and inefficient seabed/fluke angle - because the center of effort is in the wrong place.
If you look at all fluke anchors, Danforth,
Fortress, Bruce, Bugel, Brittany, Viking, SARCA, Knox - they all have the crown at the heel, except Bruce that has the crown protruding behind the heel. All ballasted anchors,
Delta, Spade, Excel, Vulcan have the crown about 1/3 forward from the heel.
Mantus is a fluke anchor (it's like a welded-up Danforth with a roll bar) but has the crown in the location of a ballasted anchor. The center of effort is in the wrong place. If you take a Mantus and drill some new, extra holes and more the crown to the heel - you can double hold! We do not recommend you drill holes - it's up to you - but you will reduce the integrity of the fluke.
Now, which would you rather have an anchor with hold ‘X’ that sets shallow or an anchor the same size, but much less weight, that both sets deeply and has a hold of '2X'? To us, it seems a no-brainer.
This is a shallow set anchor
Photos Nr. 2, 3and 4- note the protrusion at the heel of the fluke - all ready to catch an errant rode sweeping the seabed in a change of wind. The anchor has been set and then examined when the tide has retreated.
In photo Nr. 5- Two sizes of
Fortress both set to 400kg tension, that’s about the maximum you can
power set with 40hp. Same seabed, same tension, similar rode. Both anchors will set more deeply to at least a 2,000kg tension - but which is going to give you more certainty with a veering wind, the shallow set big anchor or the more deeply set small anchor. You might say but the wind will set it more deeply - just think that through again a veering wind, veering because of wind sheer, first tension to one side, then the other - we would suggest a deep set anchor with buried rode is a better bet.
Now I suspect you might own a Mantus and you are happy with its hold. Just think - you could use a smaller, lighter, anchor of better design and still have the exact same hold of the Mantus, what’s not to like?
To supplement your background in anchor design I recommend you to look at this very simple thesis by a Ph.D. student. Kim
The complete dissertation is available, for free, here
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147126425.pdf
You will find that the work was approved by Charles Aubeny who along with Puech, (the graph above), are considered giants in the world of anchor
research.
Kim’s work is of great assistance as he took all the parameters of an anchor and evaluated each in turn, and then in combination. He looked at shank length, shank thickness, shank location, etc, and defined the most advantageous design traits. To make it easier for you read pages 169-174 - and then read the complete work. Kim’s conclusion was that to be most efficient the crown should be at the heel.
The interesting facet of Kim’s work is that the research was conducted in
Houston - a respected international base on academic anchor research. One has to wonder why the
designer of some anchors did not use this local resource to support their developments.
I hope by now you are
learning there is a consistent conclusion from a host of unrelated, respected, and independent sources.
But just to complete the comment here is another link for you to consider
Oversize anchors – necessary? – Cox Engineering
Anchors are about design not weight.
Finally - Many anchors are bought because they are British, Australian, or Scots. Australians favor Anchor Right - because they are made and designed in
Australia. Knox anchors are popular in the UK because they are made in
Scotland, and Fortress is common in America (and seldom seen on yachts from overseas (though they may be kept dismantled down below). It is worth considering where some anchors are actually made.
Viking anchors are made in
Ukraine, a country that is famous for its metal and steel industry, we have many customers from the north sea area, maybe it is the name, Viking, or maybe it is because they just look at the facts and have less influence by the PR of the big companies, that I don't know.
Money-wise, selling big anchors is better than selling smaller ones.
I hope this answers your questions, please try not to use the word "nonsense" in somebody else's opinion, it is not respectable.