Sarca Excel

[MurrayM]

There appears to be a lot of interest in this Aussie anchor, so it seems appropriate that the collective experiences, testimonials, and doubters can share their thoughts in one place.

On BC's north coast where I live there is a lot of mud from fast flowing mountain rivers, so this anchor is looking pretty good.

Any word on a Seattle company bringing them in to North America?

Murray

 

[Nomad Willy]

Murray M,
Are you under the impression that the EXCEL is a mud anchor? There was a special anchor test done on anchors on a muddy bottom. Most all anchors set easily and dependably in mud but many drag. After an anchor is set and buried the blade area mostly and to some extent other parts of the anchor will determine holding power. Anchors w a high weight to blade area like the Plow and the Claw don't do as well re holding and others bring up much more of the bottom. The Forfjord has high weight to blade area and fishermen often weld end plates to the flukes to help the anchor deal w mud. Many fishermen also use the Claw and I've never seen extended flukes on them but they use very big Claws. A Claw twice as big as a higher performance anchor is a very good choice in that it (except for mud) is a good anchor for almost any other situation or bottom. They are better than most at having the ability to deal w all bottom types and perform better than most others at short scope and in your waters I consider that to be a significant advantage. But to get this excellent performance you need to pack around twice as much anchor weight as would be required w a newer and higher performance anchor. Ell grass and hard bottoms give all anchors fits and the Claw if used in a typical anchor weight for a given boat wouldn't do well at all. BUT using a Claw twice the normal weight it may/would probably be on a par w most other anchors. If I was to use a Claw as a working anchor I'd get one double size. Also I'd probably sharpen the flukes (especially the center fluke) and have it re-galvanized.
I talk about the Claw as it is the most popular anchor both among yachtsmen and fishermen (after the Forfjord). It's inexpensive and stows better than any other anchor on the bow of a boat. They are nice looking and readily available shinny if you like and are willing to pay but the performance is only available if you double the size. They set quicker than most any anchor and now I think I'm about ready to repeat myself. The main reason I'm talking about the Claw is that it is very unpopular on this thread and nobody else will likely talk about them positively ... the devil's advocate if you will.

 

[bobofthenorth]

If I knew I could anchor in mud all the time I'd probably re-hang the Bruce that came with Gray Hawk. This forum needs another anchor thread like I need a 2nd arsehole. Use the search function.

 

[Marin]

If you're going to be anchoring in mud, unless it is really oozy, soft mud, the anchor that is consistently rated the highest for holding in mud and sand is the Danforth and it's lightweight lookalike, the Fortress.

The anchor that is consistently rated at or near the bottom in terms of holding is the Bruce.

If you are going to be encountering a variety of bottoms including bottoms that require the anchor to penetrate first before digging in and setting, my own opinion is that the rollbar anchors are the best--- Rocna, Sarca, Manson, and Bugel.

And Bob is correct. There is a ton of discussion in the archives on this subject.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Marin says:

"The anchor that is consistently rated at or near the bottom in terms of holding is the Bruce."

Of course and that's why one needs double the size. Then their holding power should be at least on a par w most other anchors and you get all the nice advantages of the Claw.

Bob says:

"If I knew I could anchor in mud all the time I'd probably re-hang the Bruce that came with Gray Hawk. This forum needs another anchor thread like I need a 2nd arsehole. Use the search function."

I agree w Marin. In mud all the time?..... A Danforth to be sure.

 

[Delfin]

Murray M,
Are you under the impression that the EXCEL is a mud anchor? There was a special anchor test done on anchors on a muddy bottom. Most all anchors set easily and dependably in mud but many drag. After an anchor is set and buried the blade area mostly and to some extent other parts of the anchor will determine holding power. Anchors w a high weight to blade area like the Plow and the Claw don't do as well re holding and others bring up much more of the bottom. The Forfjord has high weight to blade area and fishermen often weld end plates to the flukes to help the anchor deal w mud. Many fishermen also use the Claw and I've never seen extended flukes on them but they use very big Claws. A Claw twice as big as a higher performance anchor is a very good choice in that it (except for mud) is a good anchor for almost any other situation or bottom. They are better than most at having the ability to deal w all bottom types and perform better than most others at short scope and in your waters I consider that to be a significant advantage. But to get this excellent performance you need to pack around twice as much anchor weight as would be required w a newer and higher performance anchor. Ell grass and hard bottoms give all anchors fits and the Claw if used in a typical anchor weight for a given boat wouldn't do well at all. BUT using a Claw twice the normal weight it may/would probably be on a par w most other anchors. If I was to use a Claw as a working anchor I'd get one double size. Also I'd probably sharpen the flukes (especially the center fluke) and have it re-galvanized.
I talk about the Claw as it is the most popular anchor both among yachtsmen and fishermen (after the Forfjord). It's inexpensive and stows better than any other anchor on the bow of a boat. They are nice looking and readily available shinny if you like and are willing to pay but the performance is only available if you double the size. They set quicker than most any anchor and now I think I'm about ready to repeat myself. The main reason I'm talking about the Claw is that it is very unpopular on this thread and nobody else will likely talk about them positively ... the devil's advocate if you will.

The reason the Excel would probably be a good mud anchor is because it will continually dive into the seabed. Unlike a hoop anchor where the compressed material building up between the flukes and the hoop will prevent it from burying itself to the same degree, an Excel just keeps going. It might end up being 10' deep if the mud is that deep, but the Excel will find something hard eventually if the boat keeps moving backward.

Claws work fine, as long as they weight 80# plus. Not sure where the tipping point between an ok anchor and a great anchor, but my heavy Claw is a really great anchor. I lust after an Excel, but ultimately couldn't make the case for one based on a need to improve holding because in the heavier sizes, a Claw will also just keep heading towards the center of the earth until it finds hard ground.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Delfin wrote:

"The reason the Excel would probably be a good mud anchor is because it will continually dive into the seabed. Unlike a hoop anchor where the compressed material building up between the flukes and the hoop will prevent it from burying itself to the same degree, an Excel just keeps going. It might end up being 10' deep if the mud is that deep, but the Excel will find something hard eventually if the boat keeps moving backward."

I once thought that especially re the Claw but now I believe that one of two things will happen. You'll break the rode or the anchor will break out. What if an aircraft carrier came along and snatched up your rode at 20 knots or so. The obvious will probably happen but if the rode held the anchor (yours) obviously won't even slow down the AC and I'm sure the anchor will come flying out of the bottom. Probably not a scenario that has any practical value but the idea that an anchor will just keep digging deeper and deeper has limits. But in defense of your deeper and deeper theory what if an anchor set and buried to a depth of 4'. Then if you came over the top of the anchor and pulled it up to 2' deep and went back to the same scope as before the anchor would surely go back to 4' deep and the chain would eventually limit the penetration to something over 4'. Further if you anchored at 1-1 scope you'd probably pull the anchor right out. And at some point on long scope the chain would prevent the anchor from penetrating any deeper as the chain is trying to pull the anchor out. And that point may not be very deep. So the concept has limits and even on long scope you may find a sea bottom hard enough that setting won't even be possible w any anchor. I just read an anchor test where a certain anchor set better at short scope that at long scope. The obvious dos'nt always happen.
I agree w you that the roll bars reduce an anchor's ability to penetrate but the roll bar adds to the holding power and that's the bottom line and speaking of the bottom that's still the biggest variable in anchoring. Sea bed.

 

[Delfin]

Delfin wrote:

"The reason the Excel would probably be a good mud anchor is because it will continually dive into the seabed. Unlike a hoop anchor where the compressed material building up between the flukes and the hoop will prevent it from burying itself to the same degree, an Excel just keeps going. It might end up being 10' deep if the mud is that deep, but the Excel will find something hard eventually if the boat keeps moving backward."

I once thought that especially re the Claw but now I believe that one of two things will happen. You'll break the rode or the anchor will break out. What if an aircraft carrier came along and snatched up your rode at 20 knots or so. The obvious will probably happen but if the rode held the anchor (yours) obviously won't even slow down the AC and I'm sure the anchor will come flying out of the bottom. Probably not a scenario that has any practical value but the idea that an anchor will just keep digging deeper and deeper has limits. But in defense of your deeper and deeper theory what if an anchor set and buried to a depth of 4'. Then if you came over the top of the anchor and pulled it up to 2' deep and went back to the same scope as before the anchor would surely go back to 4' deep and the chain would eventually limit the penetration to something over 4'. Further if you anchored at 1-1 scope you'd probably pull the anchor right out. And at some point on long scope the chain would prevent the anchor from penetrating any deeper as the chain is trying to pull the anchor out. And that point may not be very deep. So the concept has limits and even on long scope you may find a sea bottom hard enough that setting won't even be possible w any anchor. I just read an anchor test where a certain anchor set better at short scope that at long scope. The obvious dos'nt always happen.
I agree w you that the roll bars reduce an anchor's ability to penetrate but the roll bar adds to the holding power and that's the bottom line and speaking of the bottom that's still the biggest variable in anchoring. Sea bed.

That's a few more theoreticals than I generally encounter. I see your point on the rode preventing certain anchor designs from burying themselves, but the that is not a problem in the kind of mud or light sand that results in a lighter Bruce type dragging. With a heavier Bruce, the penetration is excellent, and you can take your pick on what is most responsible for holding the boat in place - the buried chain or the buried anchor. Either way, you stay put.

Chain rodes, properly matched to vessel size and properly buffered with a snub line are extremely unlikely to break, so I don't worry too much about that. The 1/2" G4 I have is good to around 90 knots of wind, and that is without a proper snub line.

 

[Hendo78]

Go watch the videos on YouTube and make up your own mind. I have both the super Sarca and the Sarca Excel both brilliant in their own rights

iPad Forum Runner

 

[Andy G]

Hendo 78, I assume that your avitar is not your late lamented boat, I am wondering why you have the need for both a Super Sarca and a Sarca Excell. Which do you use as your primary anchor?

 

[markpierce]

Eric, sometimes you tie my mind into knots.

 

[Hendo78]

Hendo 78, I assume that your avitar is not your late lamented boat, I am wondering why you have the need for both a Super Sarca and a Sarca Excell. Which do you use as your primary anchor?

Hi Andy.
My primary anchor is the excel. I have the super as a stern anchor should I require it.

I bought the super but struggled to get it to fit in the bowsprit of the Bayliner so after some pissin around trying to make it work and after a about a year I got the shits and bought the excel as they are designed to specifically fit into sprits etc so chucked the super in the bilge in case I need it for the stern.

With a bit of luck I can take both of these off the 3055 when I finish building the 35er and use them on her.

iPad Forum Runner

 

[Peter B]

There appears to be a lot of interest in this Aussie anchor, so it seems appropriate that the collective experiences, testimonials, and doubters can share their thoughts in one place.
On BC's north coast where I live there is a lot of mud from fast flowing mountain rivers, so this anchor is looking pretty good.
Any word on a Seattle company bringing them in to North America?
Murray

Try here Murray....
Anchor Right Australia Achieves recognition in the U.S.A. | Anchor Right News and Updates

 

[Marin]

Marin says:

"The anchor that is consistently rated at or near the bottom in terms of holding is the Bruce."

Of course and that's why one needs double the size.

Any type of anchor will work better for a given boat size if you double or triple the size of the anchor. But our boat, for example, can't accomodate a 66 pound Bruce or an 88 pound Rocna. So what we need for our boat is an anchor that performs well and fits the boat. The 44 pound Rocna fills that bill perfectly so far. The Bruce didn't.

There is a boat on our dock with a Rocna 25 (55 pounds). I don't believe this model was available at the time we bought our Rocna. The next size up from ours was the Rocna 30 (60 pounds). But while I haven't taken any actual measurements it appears that the Rocna 25 is a bit too long for our pulpit.

So there's more to the equation than just doubling the size of the anchor.

 

[Nomad Willy]

So several hundred pounds of extra chain is fine but 20# of extra anchor is not?

Marin if I had your boat I'd prolly have a different anchor and all the rest the same. A 65# Claw would do fine and I'm not say'in that to get your goat. It would work very well at short scope and would not interfere w my view out over the bow. I may add 100' of nylon line and a roller to facilitate getting the chain up to the wildcat. In a really strong blow and given enough room I'd set up at 10-1 scope if I could. I wonder if the Manson Ray is better or much better than the Claw?

 

[Marin]

So several hundred pounds of extra chain is fine but 20# of extra anchor is not?

Marin if I had your boat I'd prolly have a different anchor and all the rest the same. A 65# Claw would do fine

It'a moot point because an anchor that big may not even fit on the pulpits of the early fiberglass GBs. And we don't have several hundred pounds of extra chain, we have several hundred pounds of chain period. And the chain isn't what's digging into the bottom and hopefully staying there. All the chain does is attach the anchor to the boat and help keep the angle of pull lower on the shank in all but really strong winds of the type we are not likely to ever encounter in our boating.

And the Claw is just another drop, drag, and hope anchor. I'm not interested in those anymore. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. The only anchors I'm interested in today are anchors that are designed to be what I call pro-active. By which I mean their design makes them automatically assume a position on the bottom which forces them to knife down through stuff like grass and bottom crust and then dig in and hold like hell.

And the only anchors I know of that have a pro-active design are the rollbar anchors--- Rocna, Sarca, Manson, and Bugel. There are relatively subtle differences between those four that caused us to select the anchor that we did, but I believe that any of them offer a vast improvement over all of the drop, drag, and hope crowd.

That's why I put design at the top of my criteria for what makes a good anchor. I'm not saying that the drop, drag and hope anchors don't work or won't hold your boat in a blow. I'm simply saying that I prefer a design that actively promotes fast setting and high holding over one that just lies there and depends on large size or high weight or both to set and hold. Why try to carry a bazillion pound, too-big anchor on your boat when you can achieve the same results with a 44-pound anchor? (Or whatever size of pro-active anchor is appropriate for your boat.)

 

[Nomad Willy]

Claws are indeed "proactive" by your definition. They assume a position on the sea floor to ideally set when pulled by the boat. So do Danforths and ... Marin what anchor dosn't?

 

[Nomad Willy]

I know I know your anchor has a roll bar to force it to assume the position where-as most anchors don't need such assistance. The Danforth has a stock that (like a roll bar) is not part of the anchor that holds the boat but so is the shank that holds the flukes in the correct position for both setting and holding.
The Claws land on one side or the other and then then set very quickly. They have a well earned reputation for fast setting so they may in fact be superior to roll bar anchors in this regard. And the Claw dosn't need a roll bar to get the job done. As I see it basically their only flaw is holding power and according to the anchor tests I read yesterday they aren't that far behind most anchors ... at least the other ones on the test. And if one gets a Claw 1.5 times bigger almost all of that problem disappears and w one twice as big it would seem they'd be a match for anything else. So if I had your boat I'd do as I said in the last post. Either of the SARCA anchors and a horde of others would be fine too.

You say the Claw is just another drop drag and hope anchor. Such dramatics. You feel about Claws as Israel feels about Palestine.

And I never even hinted that you should get a Claw Marin. I still think the SARCA is the best all around anchor but I've got so many good anchors I'm actually grown weary of buying them. I'd snatch up a 40 to 45# Dreadnought if I could find one though.

 

[D/C'ed]

Sarca Excel anchor

I have one of Rex's Sarca Excel anchors on my 40 foot cruiser, custom bow sprit and all. It locks onto anything it gets thrown into and we feel as safe as if moored. Sand, Mud, gravel or rocks it works every time.

As an example - Last new years eve we parked in Sydney Harbour for the night (again) to see in the new year. It can get very rough up till 6pm with so many ferries and boats looking for a vantage point to see the fireworks and so much wash is created that we have had the odd sick person who never got sick before.
The bottom is a mix of weed, mud and sand. We had 4 boats all about the same size bunked up together and only my anchor was out holding us in place, mainly because I was the first one there and there was no room to put out any more anchors...it did not move even in all of the wash. So if you are having second thoughts about Rex's anchors...don't... they are the best in the business and I am happy to promote what is an excellent product. The bonus is that Rex is not a bad fella to deal with either.

 

[Peter B]

Welcome aboard, Diehard. You'll get no argument from me on the above, although I use a Super Sarca, the Excel wasn't out when I got mine. The main issue now seems to be getting them to our Northern Hemi brothers...

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Hemi-brothers conjures up visions of "A brotha from anotha motha or a mista from a different sista".....for some reason????

 

[Peter B]

Greetings,
Hemi-brothers conjures up visions of "A brotha from anotha motha or a mista from a different sista".....for some reason????

Right on RTF bro...

 

[Marin]

Eric--- All anchors except the rollbar anchors are drop and drag in my book. They hit the seabed, lie there, and then depend on their flukes catching the bottom as they're dragged along and digging in. Danforth, Claw/Bruce, CQR, you name it. If you don't drag it along the bottom it won't set. And as soon as you start dragging it there is no assurance it will dig in. They usually do which is why people buy them but if the bottom is crusty or weedy or whatever there's a chance they'll just continue to slide along until you give up and haul it up and drop it again in the hopes that it will "land better" this time.

A rollbar anchor on the other hand is forced by its design to end up on its side and when you start to pull on it the very first thing it does is pivot its sharp pointed fluke down into the bottom like a knife blade. It does not have to slide across the bottom one inch in order to dig in. Once the fluke has penetrated the bottom the anchor is then forced to rotate to put the fluke 90 degrees to the direction of pull.

That's what I mean by pro-active. If a drop-and-drag anchor doesn't snag a fluke and start to dig in you can drag it all the way to China (or if you're in China, all the way to Canada) and it won't do anything for you.

One can argue the merits or demerits of a convex fluke or a concave fluke or even a flat fluke, but this does not change the rollbar anchor's initial action of pivot, slice, and turn. No dragging and hoping necessary.

PS-- A Claw is just a Bruce without the name Bruce on it. The Bruce is consistently at or near the bottom of all manner of anchor tests in terms of holding power so I would not expect the Claw to be much or any better in that regard. And I don't care how fast an anchor sets, if it has low holding power--- and our Bruce certainly demonstrated that on one too many occasions--- it's not going to find itself on our boat. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. If it weighed a hundred-plus pounds, sure, it would probably be pretty reliable. But we can't carry an anchor that large on our boat so it's a moot point.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Marin wrote;

"Any type of anchor will work better for a given boat size if you double or triple the size of the anchor."

So you've answered the OPs question.

"All anchors except the rollbar anchors are drop and drag in my book."

It said in the anchor test the Rocna dropped and dragged 3 to 10' depending on the seabed type. You must mean drag "all over the place". The only anchor I've ever used that set instantly was the Dreadnought.

Marin wrote;

"very first thing it does is pivot its sharp pointed fluke down into the bottom like a knife blade." It being a roll bar anchor. Time wasted. Other anchors don't NEED to waste time ROLLING AROUND LOOKING FOR THE BOTTOM. When they come to rest on the bottom they are in the position already.

My friend in western POW Is has a 30' Willard and he uses a 65# Forfjord but he went to some trouble fitting it to his bow. Do the work and get the reward Marin but I know you are very busy at work. I think you can carry a 65# anchor easily. You've said yourself your boat can carry any amount of weight.

"merits or demerits of a convex fluke or a concave fluke or even a flat fluke," Concave has been proven better by the Frenchman that designed the Spade. Fact. But it's fly crap in anchor design and so many other things are much more important than the small difference in convex or concave.

"Danforth, Claw/Bruce, CQR, you name it. If you don't drag it along the bottom it won't set." And how do you suppose you get your Rocna to set Marin? No anchor sets w/o being pulled along the bottom ... duh

Here is Ed's 30' Willard Voyager in Craig.
Notice that the anchor (however large) does not clutter up the view over the bow at all. This is an example Marin of what we both should be shooting for. I will print these pics and ask my yard how much it would cost to have our FG man to do this. Don't really want to do this myself and if I did it would probably look like I did it.

 

[Marin]

Marin wrote;



"Danforth, Claw/Bruce, CQR, you name it. If you don't drag it along the bottom it won't set." And how do you suppose you get your Rocna to set Marin? No anchor sets w/o being pulled along the bottom ... duh

The rollbar anchors don't roll around on the bottom looking for their proper position. No matter how they hit the bottom they are immediately positioned on their side by the anchor's design.

The Rocna (and Sarca and Manson and Bugel) don't have to go anywhere to set. Their first action is to knife down into the bottom. They don't drag along and then knife down into the bottom. The first pull on the rode pivots them down and blade slices in. They are actually designed to resist dragging along on the bottom when they are on their sides and that resistance is what makes the pivot action work so well. That's why they are designed the way they are and is why their design is so brilliant.

Why on earth would I want to go to all the effort and expense to modify our boat to carry a big, heavy, clunky anchor like a Forfjord when I can use a modern, efficient, fast-setting, hard-holding anchor that's light enough to pull up by hand if necessary and that for years has been wracking up user testimonials from all over the planet from the Dashews on down stating that it's the best anchor in the widest variety of conditions they've ever used. I'm talking all the rollbar anchors here, not just the Rocna.

Putting a Forfjord on our boat would be like trying to start an airline today with a fleet of DC-3s. They might have been the best thing going in their day but their day is long gone. That's not to say they don't still work, just that their design has been surpassed.

I have only three requirements for an anchor. Set real fast, hold real tight, and be real easy to deploy and retrieve. All the most common anchors in use today will do some of these things. But I'm convinced the only design that does all three consistently well under the widest range of conditions is the rollbar.

If I was restoring an old fishboat to put in a maritime museum I'd put a Forfjord on it for sure. But when it comes to an anchor for a boat I'm going to actually use, I'm going with the smartest design, not the oldest or heaviest or clunkiest one.

 

[D/C'ed]

Sarca Excel anchor

Hi Peter B,

The excel is a great anchor. The standard anchor supplied with my boat caused me no end of sleepless nights and I would not go to bed without the anchor alarm on.
Since I have had the excel the boat has never budged an inch regardless of wind or tide. I was so surprised at the performance levels especially when we have a few boats bunked up together. Rex has done a great job with the design of the thing and I would now never consider another anchor for my next boat. I bought the stainless version and it also looks quite flash when out of the water. The design is so unique that it actually becomes a talking point with people. One guy asked when I had the boat on the slip a few weeks ago how much the thing cost me because it looked so good ......he was surprised at the answer and wanted the name. After some conversation he walked away very keen.
Never ever thought that an anchor would ever become a conversation piece, but there you go.

Cheers

 

[D/C'ed]

Sarca Excel anchor

By the way....It also hooks up every time regardless of what's on the bottom...no dragging required.!!! Even weed or kelp.

 

[BruceK]

Welcome Diehard!
Sydney NYE fireworks,at their best seen from the water (on the safety of a Sarca). Not much breeze last year, just enough NE to keep the stern pointed at the bridge, anchored in Athol Bay.

 

[dwhatty]

So why can't we get these Sarcas in the US? I saw the post that said some deal had been made with a US company to offer them here, but I still can't find them.

 

[D/C'ed]

Hi David,
Buy it on-line directly from Rex via his website and save the middle man.
If you need info just shoot him an email.
I can assure you that the man can be totally trusted. He does what he says and you will be more than pleased with his service. I have experienced that first hand.
Cheers