New Generation Anchor

[ebb]

A nice person has slipped me a contraband copy of P.S. February 2015.
Where-in a six page article called 'Anchoring in Squishy Bottoms' appears.

It reports on a year old comparison test, sponsored by Fortress, of about a dozen 40-45lb
popular anchors and a 45lb mooring mushroom as 'control' in Chesapeake Bay soft mud.
P.S. was invited to witness the testing first hand, but were busy with their own testing at the
time. They were subsequently given what they call 'well documented' results and videos of
the procedure by Fortress, and that is the basis of this report. It's still second hand.

The Squishy Bottom report by P.S. should be read first hand...to see if you can get a handle
on whether the methods used (static dragging) with a powerful winch is actually comparably
experienced by a yacht. And how do you read the data gained for each anchor for your and
my particular little ship.. by the method used? Big problem is how to read the chart as to
what the hook is up to... most times seems to be just flying through the pudding.
Look at the Chesapeake Bay Soft Mud Anchor Testing Thursday 8/7/2014 on
YouTube. There are 4 VIDEOS hosted by ChuckHawley "Independent Reviewer"
with straight forward you-are-there info and opinion on the difficulty of coming to
conclusions about all the other anchors but the Fortress FX...that wins the contest
anchors down! (not always, see 1st video.) The constant drag procedure bothers P.S..
All anchors preceded by 20' of 3/8" chain and 100' of wire cable rode for a 5to1 scope, but
the pulls added an extra 100' of cable to drag the anchors up to the 5to1 set norm...NUTS.
You get to see the graph, and Mr Hawley's explanations. Constant dragging 10 fpm doesn't
reflect any actual setting of an anchor. Graphic readout invents as many mysteries as facts.

Three prominent spot-light photos of an aggressive claw type anchor called SuperMax*
.. seeming to support the P.S. article is evidently never mentioned in the final Fortress test
documentation. P.S. also mentions other notable omissions from the Fortress line up.
Manson's aluminum Danforth-style 'Racer', Plastimos's 'Kobra", the Kaczirek 'Bugel', and
the 'XYZ' anchor. (in P.S. words: "an odd shaped and relatively obscure anchor that
excelled in Practical Sailor's 2006 soft-mud testing").

Notable and unfortunate, as it leaves the spirit of Fortress' intent wide open to criticism. And
since a comparison test made public is obviously targeted at buyers in the marketplace -
and certain competitors are excluded... for whatever excuse - you have what everyone sees is
B ad S cience.

Fortress Anchors (Don Hullerberg, inv) are aluminum. The ones tested (FX37) against the steel
45 pounders were less than half the weight at 21lbs. Were adjustable to two angles: one at the
more-or-less common new-gen angle of 32degrees, and a second 'mud setting' at 45degrees.
These danforths held twice as well in mud as the best of the steel at 32degrees....and 3times
as well at the 45degree setting. A smaller Fortress (FX16) assembled at 45degrees nearly
matched its big brother in holding.... "Up to 30 knots, but set anchor alarm."
Also showing well was a WetsMarine 35lb Danforth HT, at about half the FX37 Fortress max
holding...."If any wind is forecast, seek shelter." These tests were conducted in dead calm.

We must not forget these are danforth-style anchors tested in mud. That is this style anchor's
strong suit. Danforths in other bottoms at times have performed miserably. What FX has going
for it is its ajustability, its take apart for storing, its lightness, and its price. Price is arguable,
considering its 'limited' use. Questionable, as P.S. mentions, is the way a danforth is constructed,
how the flukes are hinged to the shank makes it a vulnerable design. NO VEERING TESTS DONE!

JUDGED AS UNRELIABLE.....Specifically in Chesapeake Bay mud - Fortress test procedure style.
Lewmar Claw (Bruce, Manson Ray) unreliable, low holding power, does not set.
(A point well taken is that this strange three BLUNT toed hook has many cruising fans. When it
finds bottom it lies on its side, and one of its 'toes' is positioned straight down. So it will catch on
rocky seabeds and penetrate certain bottoms enough to hold - and often better than the touted
rollbar anchors.. The claw is reliably consistent 'but not a lot of holding power'. )
Unreported but prominently displayed SuperMax (adjustable to 32 and 45) is also three toed,
but more like a paw or a giant hoe with a couple radius bites removed from the blade front.
Hard to imagine this anchor excelling in anything but a muddy 'substrate.' Interesting omission!

Spade (single weighted wedge point scoop fluke) does not set. unreliable in soft mud.
Spade also has an aluminum version of the anchor. NOT tested.

Lewmar Plow (CQR) does not set.

Lewmar Delta (plow) does not set.
{Rex's Anchor Right Excel (NOT tested, but this look-alike Delta with angles that make it act
differently than a plow IN SAND, certainly should have been included. However, in mud, imco
it would have faired as well as the Delta.}

Ultra (stainless single point scoop fluke) unreliable, sometimes sets but pulls out easy.
Here's an anchor that advertises its tip weight & downturned tip. It's not turned down enough!
This non-danforth might be reconceived to work equally well in mud as sand As in a diving-style...

Rocna (single point scoop with hoop) does not set.

Supreme (curved single point with hoop) and
Manson Boss (curved single point no hoop) 'good for lunch' - after lunch they are marginal.

Mantus (tested with its hoop - NOT tested without hoop) 'good for lunch' marginal.

P.S. calls Mantus a 'diving-type' anchor. Have not run into that epithet before, as it implies
other non-diving-type anchors. Suspect P.S. got that from Mantus hype rather than proof.
"On one occasion, the (45lb) Mantus hit a snag, but then pulled free. Although the load was
not high, the anchor's roll bar bent at one of the attachment points. This vulnerability was
pointed out in our review of Mantus (see Practical Sailor April 2013 online). No other anchor
suffered any damage during testing."
Rollbars are not useful when anchoring in mud. A professional would have removed it
(couldn't find the crescent wrench) for the test.
One can imagine that welded on rollbars on Supreme and Rocna, if caught on something, will
cause major problems to anchor, windlass, or rode... rather than bending at an attachment
point, as stated, on the Mantus - which 'pulled free'... we might assume still performed as an
anchor should (in another bottom, no doubt). Rollbars should be accessorized, not permanent.
Perhaps made breakaway, or fold back, after an amount of pressure, still attached to the fluke.
.................................................. .................................................. .........................................

Nothing in this flawed Fortress test changes my previous conclusions. Each current new-gen
style has some seafloor-dynamic changes to make, imco. They are a sad disappointment here,
made to seem completely useless. Ariels & Commanders headed for uncertain cruising grounds
might pack a smaller disassembled FX16 as a kedge. And a 35lb take-apart Mantus for a storm
anchor. More uncertain is the efficacy of permanent rollbar anchors. Primarily it's their lack of
tip weight. Littlegull now has a bowsprit and no place to mount a roller for a hooped hook.
Lean toward diving-type Mantus because its hoop is an accessory. However, the anchor itself,
rather than being versatile, appears too funky, maybe kinky is the word ...to rely on as a best
primary. In a non moral sense: the devil is in the details. New anchors for awhile seem to
perform well. Owners learn to use them. Venders learn to hype them, buy them third party
certification. Sailors learn to depend on them .... but disappointment sets in when they don't
set so well, or inconveniently pull out....and the sloop drags to hell.
The devil is in the details of the anchor's designer: what's there, what's missing, what's wrong.

Quite obviously it never has been my intention to hyjack this thread. I have felt, in fact, I
seem to be dragged along by some imperitive, or frustration with so-called new perfection
anchors. Most skippers seem most impressed with how cheap or expensive an anchor is.
Most skippers go with anchors their friends use. Most consumate skippers have learned to
set their favorite anchor with care and practice, because it's not really a well designed
natural. Some skippers don't want to change because their cruising grounds don't change.

.................................................. .................................................. .....................................
*SUPERMAX (Andrew Peabody, inv) -- http://www.creativemarine.com/
In an ABS Gulfport tug boat soft-mud certification (comparison test) SuperMax beat Spade,
XYZ, Digger, Fortress (at 6to1 did not set and had no measurable tension on rode while
dragging), WM danforth, Bullwagga, aluminum Delta, CQR...Supermax tested with an all
nylon rode,set at 570lbs and began dragging at 700lbs, best of the lot. Other past tests
mentioned on site seem to show SuperMax consistently out-performing Fortress in soft mud.

[ebb]

Fortress spent an amazing amount of money to make this trial happen. Hiring the 81ft R/V
Rachel Carson, four days of lodging, lunches and lattes, don't think the platoon of guys
were volunteers. And Chuck Hawley as an "Independent Reviewer" (formally Vice
President of Information and a board member of WetsMarine) might also have been hired
for his clout. The deck was stacked in FX anchors' favor. There are grounds to presume
that the omission of certain competitors was deliberate - as well as for certain competitors
being included, because Fortress knew they would 'take a fall'... in the mud! Money put
up for this show guarantees that Fortress absolutely comes out on top. Guess, $100,000?
A lot! It's hardware theater for the 35ft to 45ft yacht crowd.

Don't have a special anchor to champion. Own a Fortress, but haven't seen it for decades.
My original hotties, as they appeared, were Supreme, Ultra, Mantus. But sobering up soon
revealed that each has flaws. Some seem to defeat exactly what an anchor is supposed
to do. Some need to evolve into a better tool from the promise of their unique design.
Every anchor (2, 3, more?) on a 26' cruiser must be dependable in multiple beds. A small
sailboat can't fart around with an engine to precision a cranky anchor.

MECHANISTIC AND ARBITRARY FORTRESS TEST REVEALS TEST IS USELESS
If further study of the Fortress test methodology certifies their conclusions, then a poor
showing of cruising anchors in our lighter weights, makes for us almost no choice at all.
Mechanically pulling anchors at 10ft per minute for 100ft before a scope is reached to make
a standard pre-set comparison, imco, pretty much ignores what an anchor may do naturally.
Pulled incessantly thru the mud may create forces and loads that could not exist otherwise.
However, anchoring in a wind as mighty as the winch-drum on the RachelCarson with our
galvanized marvels all dragging on high, we can preview on the chart a 10 minute tale of
our favorite hook letting our favorite boat slip away to virtual doom.
Instead of a 45lb mushroom as control, Fortress should have had a couple 35ft to 45ft
yachts setting anchors. The same anchors at the same time..... THEN, we'd bear witness!

I'll always think the basic design of the Mantus a good one. Angled flat flukes are definitely
the key. Very disappointing that Mantus showed so poorly. There is a notation on the
comparison chart in the P.S. report that says: "Mantus suggests 85lb anchor for a 45'/50'
cruiser and 105lb as a storm anchor." {That suggests if we normally carry 25lb/35lb anchors,
Mantus wants 50lb/70lb weights for primary....IF CORRECT, THIS IS RATHER BIZZARE.}

So they want at least twice the anchor weight of the others to do an equal job...in mud. But
that remains to be verified for a mud seabed. Mantus' suggestion would put it well out of
contention with lighter and more impressive aluminum FX on weight alone. However it has
earned a reputation for versatility and strength. That Magical "instant set". This promising
anchor is destined to remain as a backup. It has prominent hexhead bolts under the fluke
that will gouge the deck.

ATTRIBUTES
Besides being useful for as many seafloors as possible, and having a smooth unobstructed
form, the contenders, when dropped overboard, must land on the fluke and ready to set.
It's OK for an anchor to lay on its side, if the first pull sets it. Anchors must instantly set,
within a few feet, and stay ready until called, by further tension on the rode, to go deeper.
Anchors should get set without use of an engine.

Also, would not have expected Spade anchor to be so completely 'unreliable' in soft mud.
I'm sure Alain Poiraud intended his anchor to dig into any bottom it encountered. However,
it evidently didn't at 10 fpm. Spade with its sharp point, scoop fluke, weighted wedge tip
(half of the anchor's weight is on its tip), and pronounced shoulder fins under the fluke...
has inspired the designers of each of my hotties and a number of others. Sometimes
Poiraud's whimsies are just added on, I'm sure, to a new design, because it looks important...

Tried to find the origin of the 32degree shank to fluke angle. Imco the closer the fluke is to
the shank, the easier the fluke can be pulled out or plow. A more open angle will 'point' a
well designed fluke more downward and away from the horizontal pull of the shank. My 30lb
USNavy pattern Danforth, built like a battleship, has a 33degree angle. Poiraud calls it the
'chisel' angle. Once having been a woodworker, Krenov's bevel was between 20 & 30degrees,
But heavy duty mortise chisels are 35degrees. The Spade shank angle may be OK but it
has the messiest fluke bevel imaginable...as far as anchor sediment-dynamics is concerned.
Dig his enthusiasm for unique invention, but his science is too French for me. Poiraud
influence certainly is everywhere evident on Supreme, Rocna, Ultra, and other pretenders.

Imco the fisherman slot on Supreme and Boss yacht anchors is irrelevent and misleading.
Gets instant recognition. However, Excel, especially f.s. Sarca have new ideas that are
not French impaired. Should be brought into focus. If any anchor should NOT have been
omitted, it is Sarca. Doubtful that these Fortress test results are repeatable by another
comparison series. I'm not surprised, but still disappointed & shocked at some showings...
.................................................. .................................................. ...............................
.................................................. .................................................. ...............................
Fluke area comparisons weren't done.. FX blades are bigger, longer, thinner & sharper.
Had a minor boot-in-the-butt that might be interesting to follow through on....not an idea
but something that popped up without thinking. If we already have a new-gen anchor,
and we're curious to see if changing its surface area for soft mud could make it work,
why not take some sheet aluminum or steel sheet, or even some bendable glass panel, and
shape it larger and/or longer, cut a slot somewhere in the middle of it -- just enough to
sit snug around the base of the shank at the fluke -- and slip it over the shackle end,
down the shank, to the fluke. Is it possible to increase area this way, or extend or even
split the pointy end if that's the secret. Try it out.... Will an accesory version of an added
over the top plate like this be useful as an aide.... for a modern shackle & chain duddy?

What are the pudding dynamics of single fluke new-gens? Their poor showing may be
due to fancy curved shanks trying to fly like wings & boomerangs. Hawley mentioned it....
flying anchors through sticky mud probably sculpted anchor flukes into undefined blobs.

WHILE WE'RE WAITING:
Here's another line of inquiry: In 1822 a Brit named Piper patented an anchor he called
WISHBONE. Articulated Danforth's have a single shank that splits the fluke(s) at the
crossbar/stock into two equal plates. Wishbone splits the SHANK into two pieces that arch
around from the stock at the sides of a single isosceles fluke up to the shackle.
Stock acts as the fluke hinge for both anchors ...Wishbone has no central shank to pull
up into a Windline! Perfect mud/sand anchor. But no easy way to get it back onboard!

HANS-STEALTH. http://www.hansanchor.com/ Very interesting anchor.
..... "Airplanes and anchors have a lot in common! Both have to perform with a
minimum of resistance." Have not seen Stealth first hand. Made with two roughly tri-
angular plates, one acting as the bottom diving fluke, with its twin clamshell attached
across but not attached over the top of the shank, allowing loose seafloor material to enter
.. and in theory, hug the device into the substrate, rather than deep diviing The Stealth is
'symmetrical' in the sense that a Danforth is: it interacts with the bottom on either of its
sides. The shank is hinged. The fluke blades act in a bucket form. Shank to fluke angle is
25degrees. The bend in the fluke also acts to right the device on either side it lands,
ready to be pulled into set. When on site, hit NEXT (upper left ) for a
tour of the mind behind Hans Claesson's anchor ! {don't get me started...but his fluke is
also beveled on the 'wrong' side like a lot of the guys. And while some dimensions are
given, there is no meaningful diagram with transparent specs to be found on the site.)

...........................MINIMUM RESISTANCE.... EXACTLY ! ! ................................

Fortress arbitrary testing strategy of arrogantly dragging anchors through mud, probably
also would have defanged this Stealth anchor by transforming it into a lump.

The decades old 30/32 degree shank-to-fluke ANGLE 'requirement' for all anchors, might be
tested/proved...with the assumption that the angle might be opened up more...say, five
degrees ...to see if some new single fluke anchors can be encouraged to dive in more willingly
when pulled ...rather than round out, pull up, or drag continuously on or under the seafloor.

With apology to LewisCarroll:
...And then they rested on a rock Conveniently low: And all the little Anchors stood And
waited in a row. The time has come, the Walrus said, To talk of many things: Of shoes--
and ships--and sealing wax--Of cabbages--and kings--And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings..... And why New-Gen anchors are really not!

[ebb]

Where does this shank to fluke angle come from?
Printed out a few Peter Bruce, Alain Poiraud, and Rex William Francis US Patents.... to study!!
Richard Danforth's original US Patent 2,282,566, May 1942 called TWIN FLUKE ANCHOR, has
a shank to fluke angle of 25degrees. His flukes are a split equal angle triangle. A revised US
Patent 2,576,390, Nov 1951 shows the more familiar twin fluke with a 33degree s/f.*
Fortress long flukes have adjustable 32 or 45degree s/f angle.
Interesting how stiff the descriptive language is in these legal documents.
Difficult to follow, as the words are attempting to bring forth a unique idea for a product in a
pedantic dead way.
Shank to Fluke angle: Most if not all anchor designers use the Institute of Naval Architects'
directives on anchor design. The degrees of shank/fluke separation originate from there.
The angle of most anchors is found by us users by taking a straight-edge and laying a line
from the shackle hole to the back of the fluke. The bottom line of the fluke body that
intercepts the line from the shackle to the fluke... is the shank to fluke angle....s/f.
Designers` arch or dog-leg shanks, widened shoulders on flukes and add fins, add weight and
doublers to fluke tips, in an attempt to destabllize the anchor when it meets the sea-floor....
so that any other position but the one that directs the rode to pull the shank, and set its
precisely angled fluke into the substrate. Substrates come in all textures and oozes.

Here, from the opening Description portion of Peter Bruce's argument for an (unsuccessful)
soft- mud anchor (US 5511506A) 1992 -- titled BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION...
...."Satisfactory operation of an anchor in a particular mooring bed has necessitated the anchor
to have a particular geometry including a fluke angle compatible with the mooring bed soil.

"The fluke angle is the angle formed between the fluke and a line in the fore-and-aft plane
of symmetry of the anchor extending between the rear of the fluke and an anchor line
attachment point in the forward end of the shank. At present, it is known, (see, for example,
The Quarterly Transactions of the Institute of Naval Architects, Vol.92. No.4 Oct., 1950 pps.
341-343) that for operation in a sand bed a low fluke angle in the range 23degrees/32degrees
provides peak holding power in the deepest burying anchors. Fluke angles of 25degrees to
32degrees for medium dense to loose sands generally provide satisfactory performance.

"For a relatively soft mud bed, the fluke angle for peak performance is larger and is in the
region of 50degrees to 55degrees. In sand with fluke angles over 32degrees, the moment
about the anchor line attachment point of the resultant of soil normal pressure and friction
forces on an anchor fluke is insufficient to counterbalance the sum of the moments about
the same point of soil edge resistance force on the fluke and soil resistance force on the shank
during initial penetration. The anchor is, in consequence, longitudinally unstable during pulling,
and rotates about the attachment point into a nose-down attitude wherein it fails to bury below
the surface of the mooring bed or even breaks out of the soil altogether. A fluke angle of
32degrees or less has rthus been adopted for the deepest burying anchors to permit effective
use in both hard and soft soils. The resulting disadvantage in soft soils is usually mitigated
by maximally increasing fluke area at the cost of reduced structural strength for hooking on
rocks. However, even with increased fluke area, such anchors typically provide a soft mud
performance less than 15% of their sand performance. This illustrates the problem involved
in providing an anchor with a single compromise fluke angle capable of producing high holding
capacity in both hard sand and soft mud.".....

What existing anchors ("at present" as Bruce says in his 1992 application) were used to set
the shank/fluke standards for the longitudinally stable gentlemen of the INA in 1950?
Current then were fisherman, stockless cast fluke, northill, CQR, Danforth. Of these. imco,
only the Danforth has a measurable fluke/shank angle. The patent was filed in Jan 1948.
Assume the INA had access to the idea. But why does Bruce go there (1950), that far back?

There is, of course, much more to this patent, than that quote. Interesting to what lengths an
inventor goes to come up with a rather unappealing cumbersome tool, to solve the soft mud
anchoring problem! He has added a large area extension to the rear of an approximately 28
degree shank/fluke anchor, in the form of a broad saddle for mud to sit on. Meant for mud
to slip across its surface (rather than having it stick and lump up) to create weight. Don't
see what supports all that extra plate attached in back of the regular fluke.....heavy reading!!


HANS--STEALTH may have separately solved the Bruce mud-saddle anomoly by using an extra
plate for something different... place it on top of the shank, clam-shelling over the fluke, to
create a venturi-effect ... squeezing the soil/mud on top of the fluke as it is pulled under the
seabed... attempting to keep it from crumbling and liquefying, imco, which the act of dragging
and penetration might produce. Can't speak to Han's intent, that's a guess.....Otherwise,
especially in soft mud, you have another contender with a shape-shifting mouthful of muck.

Note that Bruce says in the quote above, that over 32degrees s/f, ie, if the angle is opened
up - as I believe is the way to go when designing for all-purpose - he says the 'anchor will
rotate about its attachment point in a nose down position'. Hard to visualize, and what
anchor(s) is it that he refers to, that will rotate? Is he saying that the rode will pull on the
shank and the fluke will slip continuously with the shank falling flat, falling over, or falling
'nose-down' without catching any firm bottom....? Soft mud too soft to trip&set anchor!
(Evidently, one modern 32/45 danforth with very long, very straight blades, two of them,
will rocket unerringly thru the soup to impale anything of substance it finds in the sediment.)
You'll remember in Hawley's reading of the Fortress test pull charts, there were a lot of
unexplainable ups and downs, oscillations on the graph. An anchor may be acting as if it was
twisting or flagging rhythmically in thickened liquid mud. Is Mr. Bruce saying that here?

Fortress comparison test steady winch pull speed of 10ft per minute = 6 seconds per foot.
This does not seem excessive. Two inches per second is still mindlessly mechanical, with zero
finesse. Bruce's statement above: that an anchor with a s/f angle of more than 32degrees,
will not achieve initial set in soft sand (soft soil), because the fluke is unable to dive into the
substrate, ie, will not set because there is not enough 'edge' to soft soil at a wider s/f angle....
Don't believe this without proof!!
Assume sand here is a loose material that includes sand/muds and others less substantial.
Fortresses set and held better in Chesapeake soft muds with wider (45degree) s/f angles!

See also: The San Francisco Mud Bottom Anchor Tests.pdf (1990) AND Safety At Sea Studies -
1995 Anchor Study -- The Sailing Foundation Anchor Tests Puget Sound 1995 by Doug Fryer.
EDIT (assume now defunct independent underwriter, could not get FX37 to hold in soft mud
in a MAX sponsered Pensacola Florida anchor test, where BigMax came out on top, in 1991.)
-- Fortress can be harder to set -- when set and holding, rate best at non-veering holds.
Shank & flukes can get damaged when veered.

.................................................. .................................................. .........................................
* Bruce Marine Anchor (un-named 1991) -- http://www.google.nr/patents/US5511506
Poiraud (Sword/Oceane 2003)-- http://www.google.com/patents/US7171917
Francis (probably early Sarca 1997) http://www.google.td/patents/US5970902
Danforth (TwinFlukeAnchor 1941) US2282566
Danforth (twin fluke modifications 1948) US2576390

The 1992 Bruce anchor in this post is NOT the famous 1970s Bruce claw. (Which, imco, is the
true precursor to all the single fluke new generation hooks, beginning with 1980s Bugel.)

See Cruisersforum thread:
Anchors - Bigger is Better ? -- Page 100 of 119, there is a post with a revealing photo of a
venerable Bruce compared with a zincy LewmarClaw. An approximation of s/f angles from both
in the photo. Shank to fluke angle of the Bruce is 30degrees - s/f of the Lewmar is 38.5degrees.
Significant difference.
We see in the patent above here how precisely PeterBruce sees the consequence of the s/f
angle relationship. The Cruisersforum owner of both anchors says, "The genuine Bruce almost
always out performs the LewmarClaw in my testing."

Manson's home FAQ tells us their Ray (31degree s/f) is fabricated with steel plate, Lewmar
Claw is cast in China, and the genuine Bruce is "S G Iron."
Spheroidal Graphite Iron, is a ductile cast alloy, actually invented by one Keith Millis in 1943!
The carbon (graphite) in SG iron is in a nodular form giving this cast iron, not only malleability,
but High Tensile Strength and good corrosion resistance.

One piece single fluke hooks (all have been created by single male hominids - exception, is the
more recent Mantus) have only been popular for 25years. What can be said: 25years is but a
drop in the proverbial bucket of the lives and times of sailing ships -- and anchor designers...!

[ebb]

2016-17 google: Anchor Test Compilation. Video #56 of an ongoing anchoring series...
SV PANOPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=159f-OjWoq0 (that's what it says)


Now, here's a guy who goes ALL OUT to find a trustworthy anchor to cruise
with!! How he does this is alone worth watching (40min).
Agree 100% with his findings.
A resourceful sailor, Steve Goodwin, gets his 8 main suspects together, invents an
underwater camera system to actually record setting, RESET, and dragging capability
of Fortress, Bruce, Sarca, Spade, Supreme, Sarca Excel, Mantus in a couple bottoms.
Compact study, with interesting conclusions. Imco, this is the best (perhaps ONLY)
video documentary to date that independently compares our fancy yacht hooks.
At first they all seem to do remarkably well....

{These tests are not sponsored by any company, nor one vendor marketing anchors.
Vendors have contributed anchors to Goodwin. Anchors tested are not "off the shelf."}


GOODWIN'S (TYPICAL) SAND/MUD/GRASS COMBO SEABEDS
Two pretenders stand out. When clean, set immediately.
But on RESET, where set anchors are pulled around by the boat 180degress,
as if by current or tide change, take a load of sea bottom on the top of their
fluke, drag without resetting, even tho they may not pull out of the seabed.
They can PLOW and NOT RESET.

From a farmer's view, basically all these anchors are plow-like. In that regard some
are better plowers than others. The last thing an anchor should do is plow. My focus
now is entirely on diving or full set hooks.

Could say a dependable diving anchor would not have an anatomical footbed to cradle
the very bottom it penetrates. Mantus works because it's thin flat plate slices into
penetration -- rather than hold, cup, spoon, scoop or bowl. We see two borg rollbar
anchors consistently detach sea floor in their 'footbed' -- which adversely moulds fluke
volume into perfect plowers..

Goodwin's test of Supreme has confirmed my critique of the anchor. Neither custom
roller nor anchor will be riding LittleGull's bow. Manson Supreme, is not an anchor for
cruising -- even a lunchhook... too many unresolved design flaws. see post 203.


Altho I was at first taken with Supreme's tough looks, it proves to have more problems
than a "supreme" should. Liked the FLAT CURVE, non bowl, fluke. Thought it would slip
bottom and dig deep. But the reset capability of an anchor to turn within its original set,
or to reset immediately if pulled out by current or tide change is an equal consequence
of instant set. There are glaring flaws with both now popular rollbar anchors.

If upgraded as critiqued, Supreme might become a primary...A small cruiser with few
anchors has no place for one that can't RESET... which both rollbar anchors seem BAD
at in multiple tries. Failures show up in Goodwin video #56. (and #63 -- see below.)


Supreme cannot be updated with grinder and welder in a home shop. Changes to save
Supreme for prosperity are found in posts on this page. Manson is blind to necessary
upgrades. It's a curvey macho looking anchor... with flaws that soon are commonly
recognized, I think, particularly since the rollbar has had its day. Its cramped pipe
sectioned fluke, heavy rollbar robbing tip weight, difficult penetration because fluke's
chisel chamfer is upside down, and rear angled gussets act like brakes on the fluke
bottom. Blunt shaft at fluke collects detritus. Both* anchors are seen in competitor
videos getting towed (often too purposefully) furrowing along sandy surfaces above &
below the water without diving in. Goodwin's videos confirm dragging bad behavior
AT THE ANCHORING SITE.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

*Goodwin left the Focna rollbar out of his Video #56 compilation. (He also left out two
big-borg newer anchors marketed as Vulcan and Boss, and new kids not promoted by
large companies that might be included for comparison, like Hans Stealth).
Everything CROCKNA disgusts me, no spew is off limits to sell this product to chumps.
Any reader wading here knows that while researching anchors awhile ago, I ran smack
into the sad Poxna fraud debacle, responsibly reported & supported in massive forums
by the Brit Magazine: Yachting Monthly.... developed chromosomal disambiguations
which make me almost gag every time I see the anchor or its perpetrator's unprincipled
promotions. ...Almost, because I won't give 'em even that.

Steve's, * Rocna Anchor Setting Video #63 -- conclusively proves Pocna, just like
the Supreme, fails miserably on short scope, and unreliably on longer scope actual
anchoring test series. It's not the rollbar that faults (altho obviously subtracts from tip
weight). But fluke does not let go of material in the first set, even 180 pulls.

Wocna and Supreme never were intelligently tested before being released to the public.
It may be, of course, that larger versions of each perform well on larger vessels. Stand
alone Goodwin unbiased comparisons of mostly one size up from our smaller anchors
are fortunately what we have now. It's probably wrong to base safety judgment on one
test series. We have had nothing for two decades but relatively few biased, rigged,
flawed industry sponsored comparisons. We better pay attention.

CLEAR & UNANSWERED BY THE MANUFACTURERS
Plainly said: When these anchors set, they will not let go of material on the top of their
flukes, thereby cancelling their ability to work as an anchor when moved.

AGAIN, both anchors, in sand-mud-grassy bottom, when pulled around 180degrees stay
buried but do not slip the seabed of their initial set, and both will pull out with a blob of
bottom, or pull a furrow like CQR or Delta plow anchors, unable to set. Expect bottom
to stick in Crocna's bowl shape fluke -- but not the FLAT curved cradle of Supreme
- now 'proven' to collect bottom on the front twothirds of the blade. Blob in effect
converts hooks into Delta-like plow performance. This is completely unacceptable.
This means they are likely to fail .....at the worst time ........WORST OF ALL:

ROLLBAR MANSON SUPREME AND ROCNA ANCHORS CANNOT BE TRUSTED


Anchors----Resetting Failures With Rocna and Some Thoughts on Vulcan
https://www.morganscloud.com/ Found full essay on the net (perhaps not complete).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

UNBELIEVABLE ANCHOR
"MANSON has 'designed an anchor' specifically for West Marine". Happened to see it at
WM store in Alameda. It cannot be explained.

First off, IT's too confused to photograph. Photo in catalog, makes it look like an accident.
Up close it looks wrong. Looks so inept you don't want to touch it. Can't be a Manson.
If anchors sell themselves because they look good like an anchor should, which, for all
testing and brouhaha, looks is really what sells a hook, this one is ONE UGLY S O B.

They won't be able to give them away. The Thing at the messy end looks retarded,
maybe supposed to be buried in concrete for an abutment. Don't need no stinkun
'butments roun'heah. Handle has a goofy curve, looks awkward and unsure, with a
blunt corner where it meets the whotchermacallit hook part......Bad Bad Bad.

More specific: the fluke is based on a three pointed star shape. One leg is the hook,
the other two are bent right angles that brake the anchor from setting.
Called the West Marine Scoop. It's weirdly anything but a scoop. Not designed to
penetrate any known seabed -- or display on your bowroller at the marina.


VULCAN [this anchor is poured, not forged]
Smith's new ALL-CAST (shank separate from fluke) made-in-China fantasy anchor:
Vulcan: its scoop is a Poiraud Spade wedge bottom doodle on a tightly curved,
impressively cast, I-bar Poiraud Spade curve shank -- intuitively ballsless for anchoring.
Deliberately contrary to smooth seabed penetrating flukes & shanks - like Poiraud Spade.
It has a precious rim around the back of the fluke, giving it the look of a bicycle seat.

It's not a real anchor.

Smith's web site, immediate impression: Garbage Speak, Vulcan Hype comes off puffed
with self-adoration-- text so blatant it's offensive.

Where are we informed that the whole anchor is a casting? What alloy is it: chocolate?
100% dishonest.
This is LYING BY OMMISSION.
That is nothing new, it's the same old same weird attitude that stinks this brand name.
WHY buy the hype? Why trust it?
VULCAST. VULCAN'T. vul CON whatever. Even if it poiraud-like works in loose sand.

Smith knows no veteran cruiser will trust cast metal over fabricated plate.** So, unable
to talk real and transparent - rollbars now almost extinct - he comes up with a doorstop.

His own words tell us the anchor is artificial.
Vulcan: Genuine Artifice..
IMCO
( the shank is oddly welded to fluke)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

**There's nothing wrong, can we say, with one piece shank & fluke cast steel anchors.
The all cast Genuine Bruce has been around since 1976. Ever see, ever hear of a
crystaline break in this anchor cast in Spheroidal Graphite Iron?
Do I care if the stink bad but cute Vulcan is malleable or not?

[ebb]

Can't drive car without brakes. Can't sail boat around without anchors.
You'll probably never have a better opportunity to see what your anchor,
or one you heard about, does under water when you're not looking.

Turns out Steve Goodwin really is one hellofa skipper. SV PANOPE, from which
assume he creates his "1500 videos", is a 15,000 lb "If I visualize my boat without a
mast, I see a trawler". His 45' other half. The gaff sloop has a handcrafted set of
cruising sails by Carol Hasse & Co.

There are many videos by Steve on anchors and anchoring. Just ran into 'Anchor
Setting Test Commentary Video #19 of an ongoing anchoring series' that takes place
on Port Townsend Bay up in Washington. (Ebb landed too quick, doesn't explore
enough, gets factoids wrong, excuse me please.) This video introduces us to all the
old, no longer fashionable, traditional hooks, misfits, hassles, plain wrongs -- with
Supreme and Spade for good measure. And good reason, as you will discover.

Goodwin's videos seem somewhat progressive. #56 and 63 are where I started and
where my focus on Supreme finally ends. Early video, forget #, compares Supreme
with Spade, with inconclusive visual comparison that Goodwin has to tell us in video
who came out first. We have to spend time, and so far get lucky in the draw for
anchors & comparisons. Haven't found a complete list of video titles or index, yet


Spent hours thinking modifications to my Supreme 25. Goodwin also, BUT he dives
in, actually does it. Must watch PANOPE video #67 -- where he cuts off the what
-everybody-really-hates rockslot, making the tip a little heavier! Grinds off winglets
on the speartip so the fluke tip touches ground.. Welds on a sharp little keel, grinds it
off. Tries a slight turned up edge on the fluke (beginning to wonder here, myself.)
Welds large wing tips on top of the fluke at the roll bar, he thinks they'll help force
the tip down... with each modification he heads back to the boat with great
expectation, and throws the suffering anchor back in ...Initial set always perfect,
resets are all "failures".
Grinds the "ears" back off.

Goodness Gracious, what's the matter with this !@#$%^&! anchor? Nothing, not even
mutilation gets it to wake up! (I've been alone out here waking up on the far reaches
of pa-dot-org, forever grinding-on about these stupid anchors in this digital wasteland)
... so here's this special OP from Port Townscend, he's in his shop, probably acuppa
coffee ... and he looks over at the Sarcas he's collected, squints his eyes... and has,
not really all of a sudden, what amounts to: an epiphany, a new understanding...

He looks at the slots in the fluke of Rex Francis' Super Sarca (cage anchor, I call it)
and then eyeballs the Excel (which looks like a Delta from the Bonneville Salt Flats,
but its total opposite). Excel also has fluke VENTS, and we know from Goodwin tests,
these two distinct cousins, they set and reset like concrete.
So... dragging what remains of poor Supreme over to the drill press:

'NO WAY IS THIS GOING TO WORK'
he drills eighteen 1/2", rather small, holes, in 4 neat rows thru the fluke on
either side of the shank/fluke connect -- dumps it in at his favorite test site,
instant set, gets his big old trawler (it's really sumtin else!!) doing the 180s

-- and BEHOLD... the radically mortified, chopped and channeled MOPREME,
pirouettes seamlessly into a series of 10 perfect resets.
(It's alive! It's alive!! It's Alive!!!)


Goodwin's perceptive holey improv works perfect.
When he hauls it up, the only mud is on the extra narrow tip with no openings. Altho
the holes seem tiny, obligatory resets are so enthusiastic he struggles to retrieve the
anchor out of the bottom -- all 10 resets.

{Should you be inspired to ventilate your rollie anchor, re-hotdipping can weaken the
steel. Amazing mcu coating/paint Aluthane will work just as well, imco. But once
opened you may return to find a hockey puck in the can.)


Visuals, before the venting, show hard-packed mud stuck on the upright shank/fluke
connect. This is where the holes in the fluke go. Goodwin shows us the mystery slots
in the Sarca anchors.
What the holes do is solve the very problem Goodwin's tests reveal that haunts the
unholey Crockna-og-Supreme duo. And why both very different SuperSarca and
Excel* anchors are successful at what anchors are supposed to do. At what the
Crockna-og-Supreme's collectively do not do.

Looking back, they weren't fully developt by testing before being rushed to market.
AND after all this time both manufacturers have to lie about these rascals -- instead
of getting them corrected and dependable. WHY? BECAUSE IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE.

Rotna & Supreme should be sold with warning stickers that anchored boats will drag.
OR remove them from sale.

If these people don't show up, don't buy their products.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Excel Video #60 does what it's supposed to, but takes some petting.

Video # 58 Mantus, Excel, Supreme - together in the doctor's office.
'MOPREME'. Documents initial surgeries on Supreme with mixed reset resistance.

#68, it's a windy day -- he drops his Primary, as always, another test... but suddenly
we're sailing rail under with a double reefed gaff main and storm jib
-- it's a beautiful day.

************************************************** *****************
Six-pac thread: SailNet, Re: Another "Next Generation" anchor enters the market
291 posts 2013-14. Subject Mantus. As you probably know these anchor forums
never stay on subject -- and sometimes certain anchor makers take heat and vitriol.
We're pretty cool. But the Brits will have the weasels swinging from the yards...



************************************************** *****************
Guess I ought to say, never met or spoke with Goodwin. Probably should not have
taken all the liberties. Forgive me, anchors are serious business, a few grins and
grimaces can't be helped.

__________________________________________________ ________
DONE WITH IT
Briefly scrolled up this page here, a chapter of 10,000 words -- it's all difficult to read
-- especially in an age of tweets. Been my education. Lack of experience has caught
me wrong sometimes. 'We' still search for that special all purpose anchor, that
doesn't exist -- and anchor designers seem incapable of creating. In the quarter
century of new generation anchors, not one stands out as the champ...

Except one:
the oldest and most copied anchor concept of nearly all later new-gen designers
-- still appeals to knowledgeable and loyal cruisers: the droit d'ainesse ace:
Poiraud Spade..
Impressive and compleat uk site: http://www.spade-anchor.co.uk/

Another, promising but muddled with exposed hexhead bolts, the unique Mantus.
Others, conceptually flawed, perhaps dangerous, well distributed by indifferent
companies.
Forums seem to suggest a significant number of owners have no idea how anchors
behave on the sea floor. Plenty information, little curiosity.
(As I've been saying, designers, some designers, also prove they have no in depth
idea what anchors do.)
An anchor that doesn't know what it is doing can take your life.

Mind set that informs and sells anchors to the public is the same as sells deodorant.
We're in the armpit of constant anchor stink.
That's why the Goodwin/PANOPE videos are so valuable.

Choosing a cruise anchor is a dangerous game. Take Care. Stay vigilant and angry.
Sure is a lot of fun.
Adios, Ebb
================================================== =

"you know when you put a stick in water it looks bent? That's why I never take baths."
echuta 13, The Amp Garage

[ebb]

What with the massive ruin and wrecking of September's 2017 Harvey, Irma, & Maria
-- and one weather predictor's forecast of violent global warming hurricanes:
"We'll have the weather we always have, but it will be more severe."

Might take a look at this excellent video with your boat under your feet.
YouTube
Hurricane survival anchoring tactics (staying on your boat) - sailing Uma [Step 54]

Young sailor takes us through Matthew (10/4/2016), survival on a single anchor,
24hrs in 24mins -- shows us his
"3 basic steps.
Protection from wind, waves, and other boats.

"Also get a... B I G... A S S ...A N C H O R !"
.
.
.
(not just any anchor -- find out by watching his video.)
Skipper Dan svUMA hyas shown up on another thread here:
Tech Forum >addendum Electric Outboards< post 21
.
.
.

[c_amos]

I found the Link by searching YouTube, here it is;

https://youtu.be/52vu7bbvqC0

I am glad he made it, I agree with his initial assessment, but I prefer to have more then one anchor.... I rode out hurricane Noel aboard Faith, my Manson Supreme had the load but my fortress(s) were set as a backup just in case... I agree with mis statements about the humming, vibrating, and banging of the wind.... really much more loud then one might expect!

[ebb]

Current experienced cruiser forums advise much more conservative
approaches to storm anchoring, some advising to put out as many
as 4 anchors. Some tandem on a single rode.
Craig, setting at least two anchors for a blow is the way it should go.
Your hurricane ride on Supreme impressed me immensely. Of course,
I didn't remember you doubled with Fortress. I've whole-hogged on
Supreme long time because of your positive experience with it.

When I get there, littlegull will carry two Primarys: a 35lb galv and
same size aluminum Spade as stern. Take apart Fortress, Maybe a
Mantus as storm. Current Mantus is experimental. It has to up-
grade into a simpler, more intelligent anchor.

Pair of Spades are also take-aparts but essentially pin together
almost instantly, rather than Mantus' requiring six bolts, wrench, all
PITA small parts incl lock washers -- 4 of which have large sharp
hex heads sticking out of fluke bottom, where we would naturally
down it on deck! Stupid... And roll bar too big and prone to fouling,
below and on the bow. Mantus flat creased fluke blade has no equal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The large mantid (triangular head, long slender body) UMA set for
storm Matthew, not knowing its size, looked imco, to what might be
regularly set as the primary. That the monster performed flawlessly
says huge about design and 'deep set' stability. In 24 hrs of chaos,
UMA never GPSed an inch!!

Dan's* anti-chafe procedures are good. Imco chafe protection like
firehose should always be lashed to chocks, not the line, and be
larger diameter than the rope it cradles, for water wash.
*That will have to do. Haven't found their names yet. Youtubes are
very well done, bright, energetic, topped with confidence. . They
are doing/done everything right on the upgrade of their cruiser!

Later EDIT {OK. Previous assumptions here have been erased. Went
back for a second look to "Sailing Uma, step 55" - Post storm, where
he puts the boat back together. He winches the two rodes in
simultaneously, port and starboard. Each rode is spliced to its own
chain, hauled onto the bow thru large rattling chocks and over deck
with the cockpit port and starboard sheet winches. This means of
course both chains must each be attached to a single Crosby 209A
shackle. There's a simplicity & logic to this system, riding one hook.}

Mantus, when finally hauled in using spinnaker-pole and main
halyard, reveals the buoy trip line fouled tightly twice around fluke
and shaft, "but didn't seem to bother it too much."

He set no bridle/snubber either. But two 7:1 rodes may have acted
to 'soften' surges. Single nylon line working inside chafe protection
at the chock has been known to melt. Two lines mo'betta, sharing
the work. If I set two anchors to ride out a storm, it would be with
separate rode, as you say. Line always (altho I have no experience)
seems like the weak link in a storm survival situation. BUT you must
be holding a "badass anchor." And new quadplait oversized rode.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Accessing the Steve Goodwin SV PANOPE YouTube series anchor
tests, you might be persuaded, if you're cruising, to check out his
Supreme and Rocna reset tests, where both act badly because the
flukes at initial set hold bottom material, won't let it go, won't let
it slip off when pulled around 180 from initial set, as in tidal change,
causing the hooks to plow or pull out, unable to reset, because they
fouled. Don't want this sequence of events at an unknown anchorage.

What have you experienced? Imco the Goodwin tests are authentic,
even if some sailors don't like the short scope and quick 180s. I do.
When it lets go, we want to know with what anchor we trust below.

Haven't been looking in on SailFar. I mean to, but I'm so jealous
and embarrassed. Hope you are well and enjoying the sailing life.

Thanks for the blue line!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


TEN ATTRIBUTES OF AN ALL PURPOSE ANCHOR.
Here are seven Spade Safety Criteria from their uk site: anchor

1. must dig in fast.

2. must bury deep.

3. give max holding without dragging.

4. have constant resistance to movement
---even if eventually moves under extreme load.

5. must hold despite wind or current shifts. (reset)

6. rode must not foul the anchor.

7. must be strong enough to withstand very high loads.

. Does not require special mooring line
---or special anchoring technique.

. Snug in bow roller / self launching / self retrieving.

. Easily dismantled.


The range of Spade anchors should be CS certified. And Mantus too!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Crosby SHACKLES
are the best American made galvanised shackles money can buy.
C. makes can't-fail-within-their-rating industrial rigging products.
Ubicquitous ( copied by others) trademark RED PIN in a shackle
once signaled an alloy pin twice as strong as an unpainted pin.
They make all kinds of shackles. The red pin is now a brand
mark. But always is a double strong alloy pin in a Crosby shackle.
Nowadays any colored pins make any shackle seem more special.

Defender** stocks 2 kinds of Crosby: G-209A and G209.
The working load limit for a G-209 3/8" shackle is one metric ton.
WLL (embossed on side of bow) for a G-209A 3/8" shackle is two
metric tons (4410 lbs). Pin: 7/16"
Defender carries the full range of each 'forged-quenched-tempered'
screw-pin shackle. However, there is a red alloy pin in the G-209.

but Twice as strong G-209A - with alloy pin that is plain galvanise,
not red - looks like regular shackle except for numbers embossed
on the bow. Whole shackle has twice the working load of G209.

Is there any reason not to have a double strong bow shackle on
your best bower?
MANTUS* 316s.s. (3/8"- WL 3/4 ton) -as does any s.s. shackle
all have lower working loads than the standard G-209 Crosby.
Crosby does not make s.s. bow shackles.
D shackles are called chain shackles by Crosby.
Counterfeit Crosby bow shackles are around, probably not in USA.

*Mantus now has unique oversize eyeless pin ss anchor shackles.
Also sell galv. bow shackles. They do not say where these shackles
are made.
They are otherwise spec'ed, and the eyeless pin is worth discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AS OF 2/2018
** Defender in their 2018 Catalog tops their nameless Crosby list
with a Titan brand. Immediately flash: China!. Yup, TitanMarine is
a trade name of CMPCanadaMetalPacific. Why else name asian
manufactory after an ancient race of Greek giants? {CMP rescued
PeterSmith's RocnaAnchor after its infamous fraud debacle. Now
advertised as "Original Rocna", they for a decade have not been
steel plate fabricated in NewZealand, but in China with cast metal
flukes.} That's an original Smith-style lie.

ADVERTISED 'ORIGIONAL ROCNA' ARE NOT ORIGINAL ROCNA.
This deliberate word play is meant to deceive. Why do it -- if you
can't be transparent about materials and origin of your current
anchors -- it's a lie -- and is in line with the fraud of lesser steel
grades Rocna got caught substituiting when they secretly moved
anchor manufacture to China.

His 100% cast anchor:
Vulcan (Roman metalwork god) fluke & shank are poured, not
forged, in China. Who can say CMP chain/ shackles aren't made
in China? Which is not to imply the products are faulty -- but their
true origin is hidden -- cast metal for anchors is never revealed
-- NO product actually made in Canada, as we are led to believe.

And here's our oldest marine outfitter: Defender, featuring these
imposters dressed in their white-skin name in catalog and internet.

Why trust these people?
Any of this con equal one true Crosby? that you trust your boat to?

CanadaMetalPacific CMP, as far as I can find, is a global sourcing
distributor, based in Canada, with all metal products, including
their extensive range of Martyr anodes, made in China by $2.50hr
martyrs.


Go ahead,
buy the half fast Titan 3/8" shackle for $6.50 less than the G209A...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.

New beginnings are often disguised as painful endings. Lao Tzu
.

[ebb]

Goodwin's 90+ sv PANOPE Youtube videos, taken together, are an
extraordinary tour deforce, and gift to us. But Video #56, taken alone,
is the most reliable anchor 'compilation' we'll ever experience. It's a
deep five part study of common anchors of our time. This one video
says it all, surely the most significant finding ever put together.

Notable what anchors are not included -- without comment. Crocna anchor
totally ignored in this summary survey. ...You've been reading these past posts,
you know this thing-a-ma-pete hook has personally been tossed into the
Pit of Doom.

WET
This focus must bother some sailors a lot. But a lot really is in limbo if you are
not yet cruising, or limit cruising to certain areas.

FIXED FLUKE-BLADE STYLE-GALV.STEEL ANCHORS
rollbar flat-creased Mantus.
rollbar flat-curved Supreme.
rollbar convex Super Sarca.
rollbar scoop Rocna,
will, by all rights when pulled around in a 180 rotation after initial set, turn
through the seafloor - and still buried or not, reset. No reset if pulled around
with sea floor stuck in the fluke. PANOPE videos show clumps stuck on specific
shafts. Supreme-Fail. Rocna-Fail.

Mantus - 50% tip weight, makes a fuss in 180, but resets instantly. (Video #62)

Vented Sarca - 33%, fails reset. Convex blade fluke, downcurved tip - dragged.
YET Rex Francis' original Sarca, in a heftier version did well in later videos.
(#43>#48). From a dry point of view: a clever design, but not simple enough.
From mixed performances, it can drag instead of reset. It's probably best where
it originally was intended: on the bow of small Aussie fishing boats.

(If you like plow style anchors, Rex has created the vented EXCEL 20%, which
looks like Simpson-Lawrence Delta plow, but completely corrects & obsoletes it.
Australian Excell & Sarca -- two of only four anchors anointed by Goodwin.)


It is true, and obvious, that blade anchors won't always reset in all bottoms.
But if they clear off material during 180, or shortly after: they have to reset.
We have to understand our Prmary. No maybes. When a heavy tip weight
anchor pulls out, we're pretty sure it will dig back in and reset everytime.

Both Supreme and Rocna are not dependable. They have problem tip
weights. And real serious problems resetting after rotation.
Goodwin's svPANOPE Video #56: Tip weight: Mantus 50% - Supreme 23%
- Crocna 30% (guess) - Spade 42%, as test measured, home page says 50%.


DRY -- AN UNCOMMONLY COOL LOOKING ANCHOR
Masterfully designed with common low carbon A36 steel. Flawlessly fabricated
inTunisia. (wage: $3.00 hr equivalent ) Welding doesn't alter tensil strength.
Assume bent shaft can be persuaded back straight without weakening.
WET
Wedge fluke SPADE is known to tumble or pull out in a 180. It does not readily
collect seabed. (Not always the case, there's sticky mud out there.) Yet, NO roll
bar Spade helped by its heavy tip resets immediately. Certainly witnessed in the
GoPro record we now have. It tumbles probably because the tetrahedral under
body is unlikely when set to move sideways as the shaft rotates. Imco, sideways
pull pushes the anchor up and out of set.
[YouTube: Goodwin SV PANOPE. Spade videos, #12, #13, #55 and #27, #64.]

The Spade seems to overcome pulling out and other limitations, like its scoop
fluke, imco. Could be fluke-top geometry is a perfect fluid concavity - that other
Spade-inspired anchors have failed to copy correctly.
{Have seen no proof that a concave spoon shaped fluke top actually contributes
to an anchor holding better than flat or convex. It is a myth..}

Spade shaft slender entry thru fluke with carefully fabricated triangular section
may also help shed seabed without need for vents. Steel Spade is smooth galv,
and signature yellow paint helps slip sticky material.

Assume deepest set can be achieved with an unencumbered flat blade design.*
Wedge volume must displace more sea floor to set deep. May not always.
It's my opinion, of course, these limits on Spade. They seem in balance, coming
together in an anchor better than its compromises. Spade scoop fluke geometry
is the most copied by all modern single fluke anchors. Cuts thru kelp. Holds in
rock. Afterall, the design works: When Spade pulls out: we count on reset.

Housed, on display in a bow roller, the open end tetrahedron looks unfinished
like something's missing, like a couple lithium batteries must've fallen out.

Could say The Spade has a forgiving quality = Reliability. That's a friendly thing.
It's about trust.
Many cruisers depend on steel Spade for their Primary.


Yet to be invented: SUMSUCH - ALL-PURPOSE CRUISING ANCHOR
*Imagine a hybrid Spade/Mantus. Creased Mantus flat fluke married
to a curved 3-sided Spade shank with a very sharp tetrahedral wedge
under fluke packing tip weight and Poiraud's clean single pin
mortise/tenon innovation. NO HOOP. Toolless take apart.


Visual inspection of the S80 steel Spade shank in my possession - what can be
seen inside with a 1300 lumen led flashlight - seems equal to the galvanise
outside. There's a tiny breather hole visable inside the shackle cutout.
There to help molten zinc get into the narrow end. Imco keeping it open can
help clear mud from living inside.

Rust problems on a sound anchor? Aluminum-filled MCU coating ALUTHANE
will check corrosion as well if not better than regalvanising, or any zinc paint.


Out of the gargle of successful and partially successful anchors, Goodwin's 4
only 'never-fail' set/reset anchors are: Super Sarca - Excel - Mantus - Spade.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DEFENDER UNLOADING MANSON ANCHORS
Schaefer, importer of Manson Anchors, seems to have ended their contract.
Defender is having a final? closeout sale of every Boss and Supreme.
As of 1/1/18, Schaefer's home page has yet to say anything about their deal
with Manson. But Schaefer has a deal for you: a Manson Danforth style Racer
anchor, $212.35 now for $35 ! (What's that called, plummet pricing?)

Wonder if Goodwin has anything to do with this...? (Schaefer axing Manson.)
Don't know if Schaefer had exclusive US import concession. Glad they quit.
Schaefer is a precision tool company. Disconcerting to find Manson Anchors
and its turgid copywriting on Schaefer's internet home page.

Manson Boss meant to be the answer for power boats generally unable to
house rollbar fluke Supreme. Marketed as a powerboat anchor. (focus may
be a mistake.) It could be a pretty good anchor. Maybe just never caught on.
PB owners probably aren't anchor style conscious. Boss attempts to be an
anchor that on seafloor orients itself to penetrate without needing an
appendage.
Design result seems to have been to do it without increasing tip weight by
adding fluke area! Boss also has a disconcerting and useless 'rock slot' shank
that visually dooms the design. Manson & Rocna both depend on customers to
test their new gen anchors -- rather than copacetic inhouse R&D to work bugs
out -- before going into production and foisting thousands of half fast designs
on world-wide sailors. Good enough not good enough for any best bower.

RollBars on anchors are a passing design fancy. They are an unnecessary
addition like a crutch, and take away from tip weight, a proven benefit for
instant setting. Imco they are on their way out and essentially obsolete.

INDEPENDANT ANCHOR TESTING
Turns out tip weight really is what first delivers a successful single fluke anchor.
Not always, of course.
Our smaller lighter anchors benefit from tip-weight.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


ANCHOR QUALITY
The only people responsible for quality testing anchors are the makers, There is
no agency, society, third party that oversees 'recreational anchors'. There are
'certifiers': Lloyds, RINA and others hired by the manufacturer to certify materials
used, but not construction methods. Costwise, it's understandable no 3rd party is
regularly seafloor testing -- or ultimate shaft to fluke bend and break testing.

EVERY AUTHENTIC COMMERCIALLY SOLD YACHT ANCHOR SHOULD SUBMIT TO
A VOLUNTARY Certification Society CS PROOF TEST.
This is a decades old shank to fluke certification proof test that all makers sign on
to. Some don't. Some won't.
imco, All commercially sold yacht anchors ought to be rated exactly like chain
and shackles are, with WLL (working load limit), and a modified - UBS rating
(ultimate breaking strength). This will help put anchors on the same sea floor.
Brute strength does not necessarily make a first class anchor. Manufacturers that
hide or omit common specifications cannot be wholly trusted. Nor trusted at all!

Manufacturer's home page dragging videos, beach/underwater, are always a con.
Hard to guess whose product tops all the others?
'Responsible' is not an operative word here.
'Reliable', often used -- but impossible to prove.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



When you depend on an anchor, be sure yours is dependable..... Loud Sue
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You never enjoy the world aright,

till the sea itself floweth in your veins,

till you are clothed with the heavens

and crowned with the stars:

and perceive yourself to be the sole

heir of the whole world.... Thomas Traherne 1636 - 1674

.
.
.