Anchor Brian
Senior Member
Please see below image with a chart taken from this test, and note inches or feet the anchor moved during the reset tests.
Brian
Chesapeake Anchor Holding Power Test
- Thread starter Anchor Brian
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Please see below image with a chart taken from this test, and note inches or feet the anchor moved during the reset tests.
Brian
Cause they would have kicked a** and made the testers brand look bad perhaps? Just bring facetious
Sent from my iPad using Trawler Forum
Last edited:
Anchor Brian
Senior Member
We added an extra day to our public testing (Friday) in order to check out a new protocol, and I just returned home yesterday (Saturday). I believe we have 60 or so data sets of performance results, and I am hopeful that we can release charts this week. We also have many stills and hours of video, which are being edited now, to share as well.
I can offer a general overview of what we learned and what occurred:
- I believe that every anchor was humbled at some point during the 4 days of testing in this soft mud bottom, including ours. During the first day, when many from the media were present, and on the first pull, the Fortress did not set. Instead, it basically surfed across the bottom and flat lined on the gauges.
Our protocol called for us to pay out 5:1 scope, then add 100 feet to about 8.3:1, and then pull back the 100 feet to 5:1 at a rate of 10 feet per minute, giving each anchor 10 minutes to engage the bottom.
By this setting method, we were ignoring our own advice on how to initially set a Fortress in soft mud, which was to use a shorter scope of 2:1 or 3:1 to insure that the shank did not sink below the flukes (see image below).
During another test, the same thing occurred with the Fortress, although this time near the end of the test, when the scope was shorter and the shank started coming out of the soft mud and the flukes engaged the bottom, the Fortress began spiking high loads (1,500 lbs or so), but our protocol called for all tests to be stopped at 600 seconds (10 minutes) and the test was ended.
We noticed that some of the other anchors were flat lining as well, and after all anchors were tested 4 times over 3 days, we devoted the last day to trying a new protocol, which called for us to pay out about 2:1 scope, and then give each anchor a "bump" until an initial load of 200-300 lbs was reached, and then pay out to the 5:1 scope + 100 feet and start pulling.
We thought we might learn something that could improve setting performance in soft mud, which we could then pass along to owners of the other anchors in this test.
- For the most part, the "new generation" anchors did not distinguish themselves as better performers than the "old generation" models in this soft mud bottom. In fact, a serious concern was raised as to whether a new generation anchor would be able to orient itself, either at all or even slightly, if it landed on the roll bar.
One of the new generation roll bar anchors was particularly prone to having this occur (the charts will indicate which one), as it appeared to either slide through the soft mud upside down or possibly slightly off to the side, and the fluke never engaged the bottom in the downward position.
We tested a 45 lb concrete mushroom type anchor, and its pull readings were almost identical with the flat line readings of this roll bar anchor.
- There can be no question that in soft mud, the Danforth-type anchor is superior. First, there is no "upside down" landing possibility, and the long stock (narrow round rod) insures that the anchor stabilizes quickly on the bottom.
Secondly, the larger surface area from two flukes will provide greater resistance and ultimate holding power. The Danforth HT, which weighed 35 lbs (20% lighter than the other 44-46 lb steel anchors), held above 1,500 lbs, while a couple of the other steel anchor models had spikes of around 1,200 lbs, but they quickly broke free afterwards, likely due to their lack of surface area.
Additionally, getting the Danforth and Fortress anchors back aboard after the testing presented the greatest challenge by far. I have heard the comments about these anchors breaking free during wind shifts, but after burying them in this soft mud bottom, and seeing the difficultly getting them out at a 1:1 scope, it appears impossible that they would ever break free at higher scopes, and no matter what the direction of pull. Period.
Attached is a chart from a Fortress pull in which the wire rope was snapped at 3,500 lbs during anchor recovery. This occurred after the test had been stopped and the wire rope had slid off one of the vertical rollers of our custom fairlead, and grinded on a metal portion of the fairlead when the anchor was under the boat and off to starboard.
- Baldt, Bruce, Vryhoff, and the US Navy all manufacture anchors with wider shank / fluke angles for soft mud bottom conditions, and the 45° angle pulls with the Fortress (when the flukes did engage the bottom) served as further proof of this required configuration for superior anchor holding capability in this type of bottom.
After nearly 4 days of testing, and after each anchor was tested 5 times we decided to toss out the 10 lb FX-16 at the 45° angle that we had brought aboard to see how it would do, and I believe it hit a peak of 1,500 lbs and held. It took at least 20 minutes to get it back out, and it came up absolutely packed with layers of the bottom, including soft mud, oyster shells, and harder mud with sand.
Right before recovery, the winch operator calculated that after subtracting the freeboard + water depth from the chain + wire rope that the FX-16 anchor was buried approximately 13 feet into the bottom. Amazing.
More to follow.
Brian
Attachments
Last edited:
Anchor Brian
Senior Member
Delfin
Grand Vizier
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 3,851
Nice work.
Nomad Willy
Guru
This is in response to Mark's comment on post #120.
"Hmm. The list doesn't appear consistent with the ending paragraphs."
Mark ....
No because they had other elements of performance in the test. Not a good idea in a way as it muddies the water considerably but the magazine was trying to indicate the best anchor for people to buy. It would be a very extensive anchor test indeed to attempt to test all aspects of anchor performance on many anchors.
Fast fwd to the Fortress test as it's narrow in focus as I understand. Holding power in a specific place w a difficult muddy bottom w specific anchors. Should be much easier to relate to and understand.
I'm wondering where Brian and his Fortress team is. Perhaps the CQR beat all the others out and they don't know what to do about it. That would be funny.
I am, however expecting an anchor test that's much more objective than most of the past. But before we see the results we should perhaps realize that this test will not in my opinion tell many or anybody what anchor they should buy but maybe some anchors that we thought were close to worthless (I personally know of no such anchor but many do) have some very positive performance features. In short it should be interesting and revealing.
This is an edit,
I didn't see the next page of posts because this forum frequently enters a thread NOT on the last page. I've deleted several to many posts because of this irrational feature of this forum's habit of entering a thread on the next to the last page instead of the last page. Seems to me forum talk should be like other talk .... He says I say he says ect. Janet (or who ever) why on earth does the mechanics of entering a thread not take one to the place where the present conversation is taking place? .......... The last page.
I am leaving my post as I think what I said may be still of interest.
"Hmm. The list doesn't appear consistent with the ending paragraphs."
Mark ....
No because they had other elements of performance in the test. Not a good idea in a way as it muddies the water considerably but the magazine was trying to indicate the best anchor for people to buy. It would be a very extensive anchor test indeed to attempt to test all aspects of anchor performance on many anchors.
Fast fwd to the Fortress test as it's narrow in focus as I understand. Holding power in a specific place w a difficult muddy bottom w specific anchors. Should be much easier to relate to and understand.
I'm wondering where Brian and his Fortress team is. Perhaps the CQR beat all the others out and they don't know what to do about it. That would be funny.
I am, however expecting an anchor test that's much more objective than most of the past. But before we see the results we should perhaps realize that this test will not in my opinion tell many or anybody what anchor they should buy but maybe some anchors that we thought were close to worthless (I personally know of no such anchor but many do) have some very positive performance features. In short it should be interesting and revealing.
This is an edit,
I didn't see the next page of posts because this forum frequently enters a thread NOT on the last page. I've deleted several to many posts because of this irrational feature of this forum's habit of entering a thread on the next to the last page instead of the last page. Seems to me forum talk should be like other talk .... He says I say he says ect. Janet (or who ever) why on earth does the mechanics of entering a thread not take one to the place where the present conversation is taking place? .......... The last page.
I am leaving my post as I think what I said may be still of interest.
Last edited:
healhustler
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 5,198
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Bucky
- Vessel Make
- Krogen Manatee 36 North Sea
God help us. Art will never let us live this down.
Still, just what Brian has shared is super important info for me, as I have always worried when anchored in thick, soft mud in a blow. In those conditions, given the results, I'd probably dispatch my Fortress or Danforth ILO the other anchors now, but a trip-line to the bottom of the shank might help matters in retrieval. I' rather not loose an anchor, but I'd rather that vs. my boat. I might just pick-up an extra used Danforth.
Looking forward to the published results. Thanks for being so transparent about the protocol, Brian.
Nomad Willy
Guru
Brian I did and also noticed the Bruce did quite well too. Actually most anchors in this test did well I think. Even the CQR reset but lost 9' in the process. If it did that every time I'd be happy.
Brian that's very interesting about the shank falling into the mud ahead of the flukes. Who-da-thunk?
I think setting at short scope has advantages w other anchors as well. It would determine whether an anchor presented itself to the bottom right side up (vertical) or laying on it's side. Many of the modern anchors are designed IMO to always or mostly set on their sides like Rocna, M Supreme, Delta, Ultra, Spade and others. I think the SARCA usually sets right side up but it would depend on the scope employed when setting was attempted whether or not an anchor went at it sideways or vertically. I think I could cut off the roll bar on a Supreme or Rocna and dependably set it every time by laying it out carefully before backing down. Without their roll bars the anchors would penetrate deeper and hold better. One would need to drop the anchor until the bottom was reached, pull it up a bit and start backing. not long after way was made lower the anchor until you felt bottom and then lower more rapidly as you went along. Rapid enough to increase scope as you went. Slow enough to achieve the best setting attitude and prevent the anchor from laying down on it's side. The anchor would be forced into a very favorable attitude relative to the throat angle and the scope so it would be prevented from laying over on it's side ... or up side down. So one could use anchoring technique instead of the roll bar to control the attitude of the anchor. The weight of the roll bar could then be applied to the fluke where it would do much more good. Just my opinion.
But there would be no guarantees if your anchor pulled out at 7-1 scope in the middle of the night and needed to reset on it's own at long scope. May not do it. And if it did there would not be any need for the roll bars.
I would provide saw blades for all interested.
Last edited:
I got one other thing out of the preliminary commentary. That is not for any of us to get too cocky about our anchors as in certain conditions all of them will fail to take sometimes. Always double check. Set an alarm and be aware that there is no perfect anchor.
I would confirm that tests do indicate that if you cut the roll bar of an anchor (or in tests simply do not attach the roll bar of a Mantus) then once set it will increase its hold (because the roll bar resists setting). Unfortunately the roll bar is there for a reason and a Mantus without its roll bar landing on its back or side will never, ever, self set. I assume that because the roll bar is included on the Rocna and Supreme there are occasions when landed on its back it will not self right (if the roll bar were absent). I'd conduct tests but cutting the roll bar off destroys an anchor unbolting it leaves the option of putting it back!
In soft mud, and in many other seabeds, it is simply too murky to identify whether an anchor has landed correctly and is able to self right but if the anchor lands upside down and the roll bar sinks into the mud - I'm not sure how you know, except the anchor will never set, until it reaches a sufficiently hard seabed that the roll bar than then perform. Obviously if your roll bar anchor, and other anchors that demand a hard(ish) seabed for its self righting effect to work, do not set and hold you can always try again (and again). Not actually one of those scenarios I'd enjoy at 2am in the rain.
The query then arises - say you get it to set and for whatever reason, tide or wind, the anchor pulls or or sommersaults? What then
Brian seems to be saying the Danforth/Fortress or Fluke anchors if set correctly (it will be interesting to see how this is defined (for fluke anchors and the rest)) they set so well that the fears of tidal or wind changes are simply not evident - they set so well they are simply so difficult to retrieve - thus they will not pull out.
I'll raise the question - Brian seems to suggest that the smaller Fortress set so well that it was exceptionally difficult to retrieve. As he makes a point of this difficulty of the small anchor is it being suggested that the small anchor actually developed more hold than the bigger anchor set the same way? Maybe small anchors, if able to develop hold, work better than bigger anchors in this type of seabed?
Brian is being very cautious with defining how any of the other anchors perform - but reading between the lines none seem to come close to the Fluke designs, in soft mud.
Anchors are a compromise - but if you anchor predominately in soft mud then a Fluke anchor might be the prefered choice for a primary?
In soft mud, and in many other seabeds, it is simply too murky to identify whether an anchor has landed correctly and is able to self right but if the anchor lands upside down and the roll bar sinks into the mud - I'm not sure how you know, except the anchor will never set, until it reaches a sufficiently hard seabed that the roll bar than then perform. Obviously if your roll bar anchor, and other anchors that demand a hard(ish) seabed for its self righting effect to work, do not set and hold you can always try again (and again). Not actually one of those scenarios I'd enjoy at 2am in the rain.
The query then arises - say you get it to set and for whatever reason, tide or wind, the anchor pulls or or sommersaults? What then
Brian seems to be saying the Danforth/Fortress or Fluke anchors if set correctly (it will be interesting to see how this is defined (for fluke anchors and the rest)) they set so well that the fears of tidal or wind changes are simply not evident - they set so well they are simply so difficult to retrieve - thus they will not pull out.
I'll raise the question - Brian seems to suggest that the smaller Fortress set so well that it was exceptionally difficult to retrieve. As he makes a point of this difficulty of the small anchor is it being suggested that the small anchor actually developed more hold than the bigger anchor set the same way? Maybe small anchors, if able to develop hold, work better than bigger anchors in this type of seabed?
Brian is being very cautious with defining how any of the other anchors perform - but reading between the lines none seem to come close to the Fluke designs, in soft mud.
Anchors are a compromise - but if you anchor predominately in soft mud then a Fluke anchor might be the prefered choice for a primary?
Nomad Willy
Guru
Scott,
I think it's being assumed and I see no reason not to join in the assumption. There is a Danforth type anchor I think called a Brittany and has no stock. In tests it did have trouble w orientation.
Djbandi,
After the roll bar anchor penetrates the sea floor the roll bar becomes a negative element of it's design regarding performance. Unlike ballasted anchors like the Delta and Spade whose weighted tips help performance even after setting. So if you can force the anchor to penetrate the sea floor w/o the aid of the roll bar performance wise you're way ahead.
On a trip to Alaska in 03 we had a not very large Claw anchor that was difficult to on two occasions to retrieve and took considerable time. I'm sure we had it set deep and if there had been a blow we probably would have not dragged at all. So it's possible a small anchor buried deeply could provide great performance. But it's true we may have just snagged something.
I think it's being assumed and I see no reason not to join in the assumption. There is a Danforth type anchor I think called a Brittany and has no stock. In tests it did have trouble w orientation.
Djbandi,
After the roll bar anchor penetrates the sea floor the roll bar becomes a negative element of it's design regarding performance. Unlike ballasted anchors like the Delta and Spade whose weighted tips help performance even after setting. So if you can force the anchor to penetrate the sea floor w/o the aid of the roll bar performance wise you're way ahead.
On a trip to Alaska in 03 we had a not very large Claw anchor that was difficult to on two occasions to retrieve and took considerable time. I'm sure we had it set deep and if there had been a blow we probably would have not dragged at all. So it's possible a small anchor buried deeply could provide great performance. But it's true we may have just snagged something.
Last edited:
caltexflanc
Guru
Here is an example of what you are talking about, I think. Boat has spent a day or so moving with the current, only nominal if any wind. Oftentimes, it may just be laying to the chain. Then bang, a squall comes up and through very suddenly. Rode goes taught, direction changes rapidly. Holds out there for the squall, squall goes away, back to old arc.
Anchor Brian
Senior Member
Djbangi, if we are comparing Fortress anchors, then during testing the 10 lb FX-16 reached loads of 1,500 lbs when set at the 45° angle, and the 21 lb FX-37 around 2,300 (per chart posted) - 2,500 lbs.
Both were very difficult to retrieve, as per a prior post we snapped the wire rope one time trying to get the FX-37 back aboard.
Below is an image of the FX-16 after a retrieval. You might note that the chain is also gunked up pretty good with mud.
Brian
Attachments
Last edited:
Whilst the question on roll bar design is yet again being discussed and is relevant to Bryans comment ( Re Rocna hoop not righting itself and dragging upside down) Frustrating for me, the Sarca was developed some twenty two years ago and is still not distinguishable--UNDERSTOOD in its unique design, the Sarca is convex, not concave, the sarcas weight is distributed over its rear, the turned down toe digs in then starts to lift the weight of the rear, as the anchor Rhode applies tension this rear weight becomes an absolute driving force , this is why the Sarca's reputation of holding, seemingly regardles of what it is deployed in. has with stood this onslaught of roll bar anchor claims and designs.
The roll bar is not hollow, it’s quite thin and is solid, far less of a restriction when burying itself deep, further the roll bar faces forward-- not rearward,"unlike its competitors" the roll bar is also fixed solidly to the rear of the Sarca’s shank, not exposed at the extreme weakest point, now we have heard a lot about the roll bar anchor designs dragging upside down in mud, not so with the Sarca as it has a patented secondary fluke that basically does nothing until the anchor is upside down, also we found in firm bottom types it is not needed, we found some twenty years back when developing the Sarca , any roll bar design when upside down in very soft mud can stay upside down without this secondary fluke that lifts the anchor and rolls it over.
Now hears one for you, try and get your head around this, all roll bar anchors on the market , yes even the bugal, the roll bars face--tilt rearward, when upside down mud and weed slide to the most central and lowest position of the roll bar, remember the roll bar is now upside down facing rearward. you now have a trailing rudder, the more mud and weed the less chance of the anchor righting itself. I did say the secondary Fluke was patented.
If you look at the Sarca it has a secondary fluke plate, further the roll bar faces forward so as when upside down the mud and weed is now forced up-- toward the main fluke not down to the central position of the roll bar as the other roll bar anchors have.
For a long time now I have been saying explaing why the Sraca is not like any other roll bar, Bryan has helped me to prove what I have been saying, and of course Peter B new this anyway. Now I have a headache.
Regards Rex.
The roll bar is not hollow, it’s quite thin and is solid, far less of a restriction when burying itself deep, further the roll bar faces forward-- not rearward,"unlike its competitors" the roll bar is also fixed solidly to the rear of the Sarca’s shank, not exposed at the extreme weakest point, now we have heard a lot about the roll bar anchor designs dragging upside down in mud, not so with the Sarca as it has a patented secondary fluke that basically does nothing until the anchor is upside down, also we found in firm bottom types it is not needed, we found some twenty years back when developing the Sarca , any roll bar design when upside down in very soft mud can stay upside down without this secondary fluke that lifts the anchor and rolls it over.
Now hears one for you, try and get your head around this, all roll bar anchors on the market , yes even the bugal, the roll bars face--tilt rearward, when upside down mud and weed slide to the most central and lowest position of the roll bar, remember the roll bar is now upside down facing rearward. you now have a trailing rudder, the more mud and weed the less chance of the anchor righting itself. I did say the secondary Fluke was patented.
If you look at the Sarca it has a secondary fluke plate, further the roll bar faces forward so as when upside down the mud and weed is now forced up-- toward the main fluke not down to the central position of the roll bar as the other roll bar anchors have.
For a long time now I have been saying explaing why the Sraca is not like any other roll bar, Bryan has helped me to prove what I have been saying, and of course Peter B new this anyway. Now I have a headache.
Regards Rex.
Last edited:
I think there is a misconception that because an anchor has a roll bar it performs the same as other roll bar anchors, equally some suggest erroneously, that all convex anchors perform the same way. This is simple ignorance and misleading and possibly dangerous - as to suggest a cheap unbranded fluke type (aka Danforth 'type') is the same as a genuine Danforth or Fortress is wrong (and dangerous). We would do ourselves a considerable favour if we did not bunch 'types' together and if a concave anchor performs well, give it its brand name.
A SARCA is convex and roll barred and to categorise it as being in anyway similar to a Delta (convex) or Rocna (roll bar) beggars belief as equally a concave Spade will perform differently to a concave, say, Supreme and/or Ultra.
Edit,
I thought about this post a bit more:
I'm as guilty as the next person, I often refer to 'roll bar' anchors (oddly I never in my own mind thing this includes the SARCA) - and a Rocna, Mantus and Supreme, to name but 3 are all, equally different.
A SARCA is convex and roll barred and to categorise it as being in anyway similar to a Delta (convex) or Rocna (roll bar) beggars belief as equally a concave Spade will perform differently to a concave, say, Supreme and/or Ultra.
Edit,
I thought about this post a bit more:
I'm as guilty as the next person, I often refer to 'roll bar' anchors (oddly I never in my own mind thing this includes the SARCA) - and a Rocna, Mantus and Supreme, to name but 3 are all, equally different.
Last edited:
Caltexflank post 134.
Great example - I wish I remembered to take images like that!
Edit
I thought about this one as well:
Interesting image - when the squall comes through the boat moves right outside the 'clocked' circle - presumably just straightening out the catenary, as when the squally passes the boat returns to the original clocked circle. If the anchor had moved we should have seen 2 offset circles.
Great example - I wish I remembered to take images like that!
Edit
I thought about this one as well:
Interesting image - when the squall comes through the boat moves right outside the 'clocked' circle - presumably just straightening out the catenary, as when the squally passes the boat returns to the original clocked circle. If the anchor had moved we should have seen 2 offset circles.
Last edited:
FF
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 22,552
Quoted in part.
- There can be no question that in soft mud, the Danforth-type anchor is superior.
60+ years of good worldwide operation should have been proof enough.
Best part of the testing is that antique Danforth and CQR are still hard to beat.
For anchor out folks who stand to loose an anchor every so often this is great news.
Many used but servicable anchors can be had for about a buck a pound so having 4 or 5 anchor sets stowed below doesnt break the bank.
The $15 a pound watch fobs may be pretty ,
but give me a used Danforth 35H or 60H or 60 CQR when the wind blows and I will sleep better.
- There can be no question that in soft mud, the Danforth-type anchor is superior.
60+ years of good worldwide operation should have been proof enough.
Best part of the testing is that antique Danforth and CQR are still hard to beat.
For anchor out folks who stand to loose an anchor every so often this is great news.
Many used but servicable anchors can be had for about a buck a pound so having 4 or 5 anchor sets stowed below doesnt break the bank.
The $15 a pound watch fobs may be pretty ,
but give me a used Danforth 35H or 60H or 60 CQR when the wind blows and I will sleep better.
Nomad Willy
Guru
FF,
I agree the Danforth and CQR are excellent anchors but they both have their limitations.
The CQR w it's very small fluke area per anchor weight and it's tendency to drag along the bottom setting on hard bottoms. But on a very rocky or very soft mud they seem to thrive where others have issues.
The Danforth tends to occasionally get "things" jammed or caught between the flukes or between the shank and flukes. Probably almost never happens even here in the PNW but unlike some or most roll bar anchors a Danforth will not become incapacitated dragging along upside down.
Rex,
I noticed a long time ago your "secondary fluke" that I assumed was merely a structural aid for the roll bar like a brace on a pole barn w/o sides. Also I thought it probably pushed the anchor deeper when fully buried but interestingly neither function was it's mission. Thanks for sharing as such stuff is exciting to me.
As to the weight transfer when setting I have an anchor that also does that. I'll show pics later.
I noticed you and numerous other anchor manufacturers offer several anchor designs. And I wonder how much of that is to please customer taste's or cover all bottom types and/or usage differences. Salvage boats, ships and yachts usually don't use the same types of anchors. The US automotive industry gave us tail fins on cars first because it perceived we wanted them and very soon because they knew we wanted them.
I agree the Danforth and CQR are excellent anchors but they both have their limitations.
The CQR w it's very small fluke area per anchor weight and it's tendency to drag along the bottom setting on hard bottoms. But on a very rocky or very soft mud they seem to thrive where others have issues.
The Danforth tends to occasionally get "things" jammed or caught between the flukes or between the shank and flukes. Probably almost never happens even here in the PNW but unlike some or most roll bar anchors a Danforth will not become incapacitated dragging along upside down.
Rex,
I noticed a long time ago your "secondary fluke" that I assumed was merely a structural aid for the roll bar like a brace on a pole barn w/o sides. Also I thought it probably pushed the anchor deeper when fully buried but interestingly neither function was it's mission. Thanks for sharing as such stuff is exciting to me.
As to the weight transfer when setting I have an anchor that also does that. I'll show pics later.
I noticed you and numerous other anchor manufacturers offer several anchor designs. And I wonder how much of that is to please customer taste's or cover all bottom types and/or usage differences. Salvage boats, ships and yachts usually don't use the same types of anchors. The US automotive industry gave us tail fins on cars first because it perceived we wanted them and very soon because they knew we wanted them.
No Eric,
No fins, stripes or doodads, only design what the market dictates, the Sarca was ahead of its time and not really well marketed so it is still not very well understood, Exceptionally wide holding area is needed for soft mud, sharp turned down toe for reef, secondary fluke to prevent the anchor from dragging upside down in soft mud, Sarca was according to our patent the first true multipurpose anchor design.
Even the slotted trip belongs to us "not Manson" don’t ask me why otherwise this thread will blow up, Sarca has been a fantastic anchor for us and our customers always let us know, unfortunately roll bar anchors won’t fit a lot of boats, further there are many that don’t like roll bar design anchors, I think they feel they are looking through a Mercedes Benz badge.
The Excel then fits the bill, basically it is a Sarca squashed up, cutting edges all round , turned down toe same as the Sarca, as we do not have a roll bar we then have to fill it with ballast, the Excel toe is filled with cast steel, no need to re led when galvanizing is needed.
The EXCEL has a bisaloy shank and a stainless steel toe cutting head, this allows a sharp toe for grass without the rust, there are not too many that do not like the Excels appearance, after five years the feedback has been great, any way I had better stop as I am getting carried away here.
Regards Rex.
No fins, stripes or doodads, only design what the market dictates, the Sarca was ahead of its time and not really well marketed so it is still not very well understood, Exceptionally wide holding area is needed for soft mud, sharp turned down toe for reef, secondary fluke to prevent the anchor from dragging upside down in soft mud, Sarca was according to our patent the first true multipurpose anchor design.
Even the slotted trip belongs to us "not Manson" don’t ask me why otherwise this thread will blow up, Sarca has been a fantastic anchor for us and our customers always let us know, unfortunately roll bar anchors won’t fit a lot of boats, further there are many that don’t like roll bar design anchors, I think they feel they are looking through a Mercedes Benz badge.
The Excel then fits the bill, basically it is a Sarca squashed up, cutting edges all round , turned down toe same as the Sarca, as we do not have a roll bar we then have to fill it with ballast, the Excel toe is filled with cast steel, no need to re led when galvanizing is needed.
The EXCEL has a bisaloy shank and a stainless steel toe cutting head, this allows a sharp toe for grass without the rust, there are not too many that do not like the Excels appearance, after five years the feedback has been great, any way I had better stop as I am getting carried away here.
Regards Rex.
Last edited:
psneeld
Guru
You may have a patent on the slotted shank but the idea is hardly new...these have been around for the last 30 years or so, maby many more...is SARCA that old???
Attachments
I knew I should not have said anything , Pesneeld yes you are right to a point, difference being that trip release is not automatic resetable when the anchor is released like the Sarca,if you were to sail over your concept the anchor would be dislodged and dragged rear ward.
The Sarca trip whilst it looks similar will not drag rearward, its two thirty am here now so too tired to go into it any further, if you want you can PM me and Iwill fill you in.
Maybe I should re word it, the arrangment of the slotted shank in the Sarca? if your not happy let me know.
Regards Rex.
The Sarca trip whilst it looks similar will not drag rearward, its two thirty am here now so too tired to go into it any further, if you want you can PM me and Iwill fill you in.
Maybe I should re word it, the arrangment of the slotted shank in the Sarca? if your not happy let me know.
Regards Rex.
Last edited:
It would appear that the only thing the infinite number of anchor discussions and anchor tests prove is that they don't prove anything.
With regards to fluke shape specifically, I base my assesment of an anchor's holding power on one primary characteristic. Which side of a shovel blade offers the most resistance to dirt and therefore picks up the most of it? (Hint--- it's not the convex side).
As I've said many times before, every anchor configuration sets perfectly until the day it doesn't, and every anchor configuration never drags until the day it does.
So far as I can see, Fast Fred seems to have the most realistic grasp of reality with regards to which anchors work best. A super-snazzy, "new generation" anchor will offer all kinds of great performance because of its "scientific" design. And it will do this totally reliably in every kind of bottom and weather condition imaginable until the day it doesn't.
The bazillion-year old designs that Fred talks about also offer all kinds of great performance in all sorts of bottom and weather conditions until the day they don't.
So which is truly--- not theoretically--- better?
About the only philosophy I will subscribe to is that some designs--- doesn't matter how old or new they are--- are optimized for certain bottom characteristics. Which is why the Danforth-types do real well in sand and mud and stuff, and why the claws and rollbars set real well in weed and gravel and hardpan and whatnot. Until the day they don't, of course.
I was a fan of the Bruce until it started letting us down and then I wasn't. But regardless of our experience and opinions, there is no getting around the fact that in this part of the world, the Bruce is by far the most popular type of anchor on recreational power boats. I know boaters who have used them in all sorts of conditions up and down this coast with narry a problem for decades.
So is a Bruce--- or any other anchor you care to name-- a good, bad, or indifferent anchor?
I say it depends solely on the experience its owner has with it.
The Sarca is an outstanding anchor as evidenced by all the users who speak very highly of their experiences with it. We'd buy one if we thought it was the best design instead of the second-best.
But.... how 'bout the fellow who's been using a Bruce, or a Danforth, or a CQR, or a Dreadnaught with total success all up and down the PNW, BC, and SE Alaska coast for ages? Looks like for him, the Sarca (or any of the other snazzy "new-gen" anchors) offers no improvement whatsover.
So is he making a horrible, boat-threatening mistake by not switching to a new-type anchor because the tests, ads, and internet posts all say he should?
The makers of the snazzy new anchors would say he is, as would the internet posters who favor one kind of anchor over another for whatever reasons. He, on the other hand, would probably scoff at the suggestion.
And, frankly, I think he'd be right.
We have a good friend who's had experiences with his Bruce as bad as we had with ours. He's now looking to get a "better" anchor. Lots of choices, of course, and he has his preferences based on whatever design features he thinks a reliable anchor should have.
But what in the end proves to be a better anchor for him may not prove to be a better anchor for someone else, even someone with the same kind of boat cruising in the same waters.
Anchor tests, no matter how impartial, are conducted under a tiny set of conditions compared to the virtually infinite number of anchoring conditions that are encountered in the "real" world. And every anchor manufacturer spins numbers and tests and features to make their anchor sound like the most amazing thing ever created by man.
But in the end, I believe it all boils down to the experience the individual boater has with whatever anchor he or she has chosen to use. Old design, new design, if it works and your boat stays put, nothing else really matters, right?
As to looking through an anchor rollbar underway, we think it's great. Just put the sight on the next waypoint and keep it there. Plotters..? We don't need no stinkin' plotters.
With regards to fluke shape specifically, I base my assesment of an anchor's holding power on one primary characteristic. Which side of a shovel blade offers the most resistance to dirt and therefore picks up the most of it? (Hint--- it's not the convex side).
As I've said many times before, every anchor configuration sets perfectly until the day it doesn't, and every anchor configuration never drags until the day it does.
So far as I can see, Fast Fred seems to have the most realistic grasp of reality with regards to which anchors work best. A super-snazzy, "new generation" anchor will offer all kinds of great performance because of its "scientific" design. And it will do this totally reliably in every kind of bottom and weather condition imaginable until the day it doesn't.
The bazillion-year old designs that Fred talks about also offer all kinds of great performance in all sorts of bottom and weather conditions until the day they don't.
So which is truly--- not theoretically--- better?
About the only philosophy I will subscribe to is that some designs--- doesn't matter how old or new they are--- are optimized for certain bottom characteristics. Which is why the Danforth-types do real well in sand and mud and stuff, and why the claws and rollbars set real well in weed and gravel and hardpan and whatnot. Until the day they don't, of course.
I was a fan of the Bruce until it started letting us down and then I wasn't. But regardless of our experience and opinions, there is no getting around the fact that in this part of the world, the Bruce is by far the most popular type of anchor on recreational power boats. I know boaters who have used them in all sorts of conditions up and down this coast with narry a problem for decades.
So is a Bruce--- or any other anchor you care to name-- a good, bad, or indifferent anchor?
I say it depends solely on the experience its owner has with it.
The Sarca is an outstanding anchor as evidenced by all the users who speak very highly of their experiences with it. We'd buy one if we thought it was the best design instead of the second-best.
But.... how 'bout the fellow who's been using a Bruce, or a Danforth, or a CQR, or a Dreadnaught with total success all up and down the PNW, BC, and SE Alaska coast for ages? Looks like for him, the Sarca (or any of the other snazzy "new-gen" anchors) offers no improvement whatsover.
So is he making a horrible, boat-threatening mistake by not switching to a new-type anchor because the tests, ads, and internet posts all say he should?
The makers of the snazzy new anchors would say he is, as would the internet posters who favor one kind of anchor over another for whatever reasons. He, on the other hand, would probably scoff at the suggestion.
And, frankly, I think he'd be right.
We have a good friend who's had experiences with his Bruce as bad as we had with ours. He's now looking to get a "better" anchor. Lots of choices, of course, and he has his preferences based on whatever design features he thinks a reliable anchor should have.
But what in the end proves to be a better anchor for him may not prove to be a better anchor for someone else, even someone with the same kind of boat cruising in the same waters.
Anchor tests, no matter how impartial, are conducted under a tiny set of conditions compared to the virtually infinite number of anchoring conditions that are encountered in the "real" world. And every anchor manufacturer spins numbers and tests and features to make their anchor sound like the most amazing thing ever created by man.
But in the end, I believe it all boils down to the experience the individual boater has with whatever anchor he or she has chosen to use. Old design, new design, if it works and your boat stays put, nothing else really matters, right?
As to looking through an anchor rollbar underway, we think it's great. Just put the sight on the next waypoint and keep it there. Plotters..? We don't need no stinkin' plotters.
Attachments
Last edited:
Marin,
To summarise:
Maybe if a customer has the opportunity to test, use, a variety of anchors then he will inevitably find one that suits the seabeds over which he travels. Whatever he finds is the best will be the best for him. But what happens when he moves outside his comfort zone - we need anchors (note my use of the plural) that are reliable in a cross section of seabeds. The hype has been that the new gen anchors outstrip the older designs hands down - what they do not seem to have mentioned is that some (come on Fortress spill the beans!) will not set at all in some seabeds.
To me it appears slightly (I'm well know for being charitable) dishonest to hammer home the virtues of a product, repeatedly, and have acolytes repeating the mantra but omitting to mention that in some common seabeds they are a hazard to life. It is disingenuous, I prefer the words dangerous and dishonest, to repeatedly point out the virtues of a product used in the same environment and in the same way and completely omit to mention that, actually, it might not work at all somewhere else. Repetition moves you up Google rankings but it does not make the anchor any better - it just shows you up as a charlatan. (Snake oil and smoke and mirrors come to mind)
Reviewing anchor tests - they are predominately in medium to hard or hard sand - not a cubic foot of mud to be seen (apart from Fortress' tests in the early '90s).
We do need anchors that work in hard sands but we also need anchors that work in soft sand and mud. More importantly we need to know if some are better then others in all of these seabeds and more importantly we need to know that some might be absolutely useless - and it would be convenient to have this pointed out by someone before we want to anchor somewhere our anchor will not work (at 2am when its raining and we are dog tired).
But anchors are a compromise, do not rely on one - the use of the plural. You might lose an anchor, you might find a seabed where your anchor does not work.
To summarise:
Maybe if a customer has the opportunity to test, use, a variety of anchors then he will inevitably find one that suits the seabeds over which he travels. Whatever he finds is the best will be the best for him. But what happens when he moves outside his comfort zone - we need anchors (note my use of the plural) that are reliable in a cross section of seabeds. The hype has been that the new gen anchors outstrip the older designs hands down - what they do not seem to have mentioned is that some (come on Fortress spill the beans!) will not set at all in some seabeds.
To me it appears slightly (I'm well know for being charitable) dishonest to hammer home the virtues of a product, repeatedly, and have acolytes repeating the mantra but omitting to mention that in some common seabeds they are a hazard to life. It is disingenuous, I prefer the words dangerous and dishonest, to repeatedly point out the virtues of a product used in the same environment and in the same way and completely omit to mention that, actually, it might not work at all somewhere else. Repetition moves you up Google rankings but it does not make the anchor any better - it just shows you up as a charlatan. (Snake oil and smoke and mirrors come to mind)
Reviewing anchor tests - they are predominately in medium to hard or hard sand - not a cubic foot of mud to be seen (apart from Fortress' tests in the early '90s).
We do need anchors that work in hard sands but we also need anchors that work in soft sand and mud. More importantly we need to know if some are better then others in all of these seabeds and more importantly we need to know that some might be absolutely useless - and it would be convenient to have this pointed out by someone before we want to anchor somewhere our anchor will not work (at 2am when its raining and we are dog tired).
But anchors are a compromise, do not rely on one - the use of the plural. You might lose an anchor, you might find a seabed where your anchor does not work.
markpierce
Master and Commander
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 12,557
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Carquinez Coot
- Vessel Make
- penultimate Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
The typical/popular multiple-anchor combination for forty-plus-foot boats in "my corner" of the marina:
But if in the market for a new anchor, pay/go for it. Get/be happy!
But if in the market for a new anchor, pay/go for it. Get/be happy!
Mark,
New genuine CQRs are now one of the more expensive anchors on the market and genuine Bruce are like hen's teeth. Buying a 'new' design anchor overcomes the impossible and is cheaper than the alternative (and might have other benefits?)
But your corner of the marina looks like corners of marinas near me (and my corners overlap to become the whole!) - there is a huge market for the newer design anchor makers to address, but some of them prefer to stick knives in their competitors backs rather than go for the larger market.
New genuine CQRs are now one of the more expensive anchors on the market and genuine Bruce are like hen's teeth. Buying a 'new' design anchor overcomes the impossible and is cheaper than the alternative (and might have other benefits?)
But your corner of the marina looks like corners of marinas near me (and my corners overlap to become the whole!) - there is a huge market for the newer design anchor makers to address, but some of them prefer to stick knives in their competitors backs rather than go for the larger market.
Nomad Willy
Guru
Marin wrote;
"With regards to fluke shape specifically, I base my assesment of an anchor's holding power on one primary characteristic. Which side of a shovel blade offers the most resistance to dirt and therefore picks up the most of it? (Hint--- it's not the convex side)."
It's been established by the Frenchman that designed the Spade anchor that that is correct. And there's lots of anchors that have been designed since that utilize the convex side of the fluke to face the boat. From numerous countries and by numerous manufacturers all over the world they seem to use either side convex or concave to get the job done. Just like the fact that there are lots of airplanes w dihedral .... Most actually. Hmmmmmm ...... There must be more to it than the ultimate efficiency, the ultimate holding power or the ultimate principals of design.
My best anchor IMO takes the middle of the road and is flat as is the anchor that is/should be the subject of this thread .... Fortress and more specifically the mud test that they are doing. But the best anchor probably dosn't come out top dog in any way but does everything very well. Almost all the anchors that I know of have some "problem". Frequently we tolerate such a problem to get super performance in some other way that pleases us but often leaves us less secure ..... and security is the bottom line in anchoring.
"With regards to fluke shape specifically, I base my assesment of an anchor's holding power on one primary characteristic. Which side of a shovel blade offers the most resistance to dirt and therefore picks up the most of it? (Hint--- it's not the convex side)."
It's been established by the Frenchman that designed the Spade anchor that that is correct. And there's lots of anchors that have been designed since that utilize the convex side of the fluke to face the boat. From numerous countries and by numerous manufacturers all over the world they seem to use either side convex or concave to get the job done. Just like the fact that there are lots of airplanes w dihedral .... Most actually. Hmmmmmm ...... There must be more to it than the ultimate efficiency, the ultimate holding power or the ultimate principals of design.
My best anchor IMO takes the middle of the road and is flat as is the anchor that is/should be the subject of this thread .... Fortress and more specifically the mud test that they are doing. But the best anchor probably dosn't come out top dog in any way but does everything very well. Almost all the anchors that I know of have some "problem". Frequently we tolerate such a problem to get super performance in some other way that pleases us but often leaves us less secure ..... and security is the bottom line in anchoring.
