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.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by ebb
but some is still better than none.
