straight shots and deep sets
craigsmith,
Just because you guys have decided that a spoonshaped anchor is going to work better than any other doesn't make it so. You had your inspiration, you followed thru on it, and here you are in business. There is no superior nature of a concave fluke - unless it is supported by testing. And I'm saying here that all anchors we have mentioned here should be compared with each other in an all-out knock-down deep set fight - befor I spend my bucks based on anybody's unsupported statements.
That 'most anchors slowly increase their holding power over a 12 or 24 hours period' - is not relevant. The subject is spoon shaped anchors. My argument is that spoon shaped blades will take their bite, their set, and will not go deeper naturally because their shape AND THE PULL ON THE RODE will not let them do that.
I believe this statement is in part supported by the video you have on your internet site. Because you do NOT show any pull on your anchor once it is set. Right?
It seems possible that once a Rocna or a Spade or a Max or a Bruce take their set they might dig in more solidly - but by design they cannot dig in much deeper. Because it is not in the nature of their design to do so. My specific point here is unsupported by any testing. BUT what testing we do have seems to indicated that spoonshaped anchors in general have a problem staying set. That is my impression from the tests I've read.
There is also from craigsmith here NO proof that a straightshaped Buegel blade does not set deeper and better. There have been no side by sides and therefor you can't intimate your anchor is better. Well, of course,
YOU CAN SAY IT, BUT SAYING IT DON'T PROVE A THING.
Nor can you say your anchor is better than a Supreme because it is fabricated out of brake-pressed pieces and is more expensive to produce. Again, irrelevant, the point is whether the anchor can do its job well. There is nothing in what you say that proves a radiused straightbladed Manson Supreme cannot set deeper and better than a dog-legged Rocna spooney. What testing of methods and materials, unless it is in plain name calling, do you propose that makes one anchor better than another. "Nyah, nyah, nyah, you don have no 'core design principals,' and you have 'laminated flukes' too! Yuck.
By the way, the design of the Manson Supreme makes the anchor as radically different from the Rocna as the Sarca, no similarity exists except in the roll-over-bar.
And you can't just say that the Sarca convex blade will not do as well as a Rocna because it is somehow inferior to the spiffy concept shape of Rocna. NO PROOF.
Along with other good attributes an ideal anchor should set quickly and once set not pull out or drag but set deeper and deeper still in nearly all bottoms if made necessary by the conditions at the samson post. No excuses.
I want to see your anchor pitted against all comers in whatever sailboat tonnage range agreed upon. Hopefully sailboats under 35' The sole purpose of the test is ease of set, short scope long scope hold, deep set ability, dial testing to pull out or drag and any other, like a veering test that would tell the tale about each anchor in a working mode. And any other parameters agreed upon.
No salesmen, no inuendos, no non sequeturs.
You do have a point: the endless repetition of unsupported statements and enthusiastic bs will influence some unwary to buy an anchor or not buy a competitor' anchor. And who's to say that yours isn't the best when you do say that it is.
Rocna video - what's real
G'mornin Mac,
Well, we have a bit of a he said she said situation here.
I have reviewed the Rocna video again - and what I see there are STRAIGHT PULL tests showing a claw (Bruce) not setting and a plow (CQR) not setting.
Of the small range of anchors shown in a brief pan shot, a Sarca was in the lineup and was NOT shown later in the video as part of the 'test'. There was also a Spade anchor also NOT shown in the 'test'.
The only assumption one can make is that Rocna is showing itself winning, shall we say, against a couple of lame horses. Big deal. And using a method of 'testing' that seems to be getting general complaints, not only mine. Ofcourse the video is a company promotional. That it is a promo is also its problem, because it has to be extra careful to seem to be truthful or fair.
In the P.S. straight pull mud test the Rocna 15 did well on long scope but dragged on short scope. This to me is an indication that this Rocna is not as versatile nor as dependable as some other anchors in that test. No matter what I think of the test it was one of comparisons and a sort of data was generated from it.
And as I have been wondering: is this a congenital problem of the spoon design?
The Rocna video does show a Rocna set very well on the 'long scope' pull test. It also shows it pulled out (by hand - with requisite drama) with a lump of wet sand in its blade.
The Rocna video is extremely elementary and of no use at all except to introduce a viewer to the anchor first time.
I will stand by my statement on spoonshaped anchors not able to take a deep set
until proven otherwise in a well designed comparison test by an independant source.
In the meantime my attention is on non-spoon anchors and non-plow. I think the new tech anchors are still developing. I don't know how to trust anecdotal evidence, tho I am really happy that you, Mac, contribute your experience to this thread. We must be learning something here! We certainly are getting our lines drawn in the sand.
WASI - seeing is believing - but what does it mean?
Not an African anchor.
The very first vender inside the entrance to the vender's tents was/is (The Strickly Sail boat show is still in progress) Swiss Tech America. I stopped short because the photo displays had three views of the Wasi. Buegel to me. "You don't happen to have one here, do you?" Gene Lamb, the US franchiser of Swiss Tech, looked down at my feet. I was almost standing on a live one.
The first thing you notice is the s.s / titanium metal and how chunky the anchor is. The shank of this small (8kg, 18#) looked like it was between 3/4 and 7/8" thick.
What is not apparent in any of the photos is what the blade is like. The blade is the same thickness as the shank!!! - with a, let's say 120 degree chamfer underneath on the pointy sides of the triangle blade. The blade is dead flat. It is not hard to imagine this anchor slicing STRAIGHT into any bottom.
The 8kg anchor at the show is not listed in the catalog product line on the web site, which starts at 11kg or about 25#. I haven't had time to read up on this, but it would seem more than adequate for the Ariel. The anchor and its swivel and chain are sold as a system and is very expensive. Strangely, in the catalog, it is given the same amount of space and importance as a cup holder and the boat hooks.
I think the 18kg, 31# would make a fantastic versatile primary anchor capable of penetrating 'mud shale clay gravel volcanic rock and grass.' The anchor looks incredibly strong (hmmm, wonder about the shank to blade weld?) and incredibly capable of PENETRATING a wide variety of bottoms. There are NO curves that imco would keep this anchor from setting deeper as the stress on the rode increases. I'm persuaded this anchor will not 'pop' out of a set once dug in. NO WAY.
[But lets add: that s.s is much more slippery than galvanized and imco more likely to slip. slice. chisel. in deeper.]
Gene allowed that a suitable shackle (perhaps a Suncor straight D with a no snag pin) would do better for American buyers of the Wasi because some swivels sold here have been returned bent. Evidently the manufacturer cannot understand how the Yanks are bending (but not breaking) the swivel. Actually it looks pretty easy to me! The Powerball has a very slender neck. The Powerball and a chainhook are available (sans anchor and chain) thru other vendors like Perko. The chain to anchor connector is a very hot issue.
Gene Lamb told me that he was the sole importer of the Wasi and that it was unavailable in galvanized. Both statements seem to be a stretch. because there is an outfit called inter-yacht.com in NC that sells galvanized at a more reasonable price. Gene also said that Chuck Hawley of West Marine has just completed a new test of anchors that included the Wasi/Buegel. What other usual suspects were included is unknown, so is when the results will be made public. If anyone is interested in the (unsophisticated, as craigsmith calls it) Wasi/Buegel in galvanized I would research to find out if the inter-yacht hook is some sort of a knockoff.
I found that comment of craigsmith's on the SSCA forum. What gets me is how disingenuous (false candor) it is to call the Buegel unsophisticated. In its simplicity and elegance it is extremely sophisticated. Much more so than Peter's knockoff of the design with the added doodahs that the Rocna represents. Falsely sophisticated, perhaps? For instance, putting the bevels on the underside of the Buegel blade is supremely smart, and very sharp.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
P.S. tests.
1998 -wet packed sand - "The Bruce, in many conditions, is a ferocious setting anchor....In tests by other groups. the Bruce was not as good at ultimate holding power." Bruce, "clear winner".
Jan '99 - sand - Spade & Bulwagga star.
Dec '99 - mud - Barnacle, CQR
Jan '01 - muddy sand - included a 140 degree veer - Bruce, Fortress, Supermax.
Jan '02 - sandy mud - First time with powerboat (twin 90hp OBs) - Quickset best but "popped out at 600# then reset to 780#"
'03 - soft sand on hard sand - set with power boat then rodes led to winch on shore, observed by diver....
google: 03anchor
You take it from there. The WASI clearly will set and set deeper than the competition. It suffers from being extremely expensive in the US, being marketed as a system, and also rather awkwardly marketed.
Maybe craigsmith could get a job over there. They could use some slick marketing. And could see if the Roc will set in Med grass.