Sarca Excel

manyboats said:

Rex writes;

"this I believe is true as there are no videos showing the two similar concave designs burying their hoops out of site." Refering to Rocna and M Supreme I assume.

It may be so but I think I actually saw such a video but I also think it was in very soft sand and not under water. If it exists Marin will probably find it.

Click to expand...

You are correct, Eric. There are a few videos showing a Rocna digging way deeper than the top of the rollbar. With one exception the videos I've seen showed the anchor during comparison tests with other anchor types in wet sand at the edge of a beach just above the waterline. in one of them--- I believe it's the one that was on the Rocna website at the time we were researching anchors, so seven years ago or so--- the anchor buried itself so deep they had to dig down with shovels to find the top of the rollbar so they could haul it out.

We saw one user-shot video of a Rocna digging itself down much deeper than the top of the rollbar that was shot underwater in the southwest Pacific. This was not part of an anchor test but was just a video some sailboater had shot and had posted to show how effective his new Rocna was. Here again, the bottom was sand.

I very much doubt the anchor would dig anywhere near this deep in mud unless it was really, really oozy mud.

manyboats said:

Delfin,
The roll bar orienting the anchor to the correct position for setting is NOT an advantage at all in that ALL other anchors do that as they come to rest on the bottom. The roll bar anchors don't and need the roll bar to insure that they don't just drag along the bottom never even attempting to set.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you didn't read the entire post......

Delfin: " The idea that the roller bar ensures better setting is debatable, IMHO, as I have never had a Bruce type or other not start to dig in immediately."

Marin said:

Ah, but it's not pointing straight down. The fluke is angled back and with its rounded, thick point it can act just like a sled runner if the bottom is firm. During our search for a better anchor I came across video of a Bruce doing exactly this. It lands this way and then drags along the bottom on the shank with the one fluke digging a shallow furrow but never actually digging in enough to cause the anchor to rotate and set. Might be rare, but it's been proven to happen and that's good enough for me to reject the design.

If the tip of the fluke was much sharper I suspect that this would greatly reduce the chance of this happening. But it isn't, hence our Bruce's current occupation a a doorstop. For which it is very well suited, I might add. So when your little Claw lets you down you can rest assured that its not been money wasted as you can used it up there in Concrete to prop something open. Would also work well as a wheel-stop I think.

Click to expand...

I'll admit that I have found the Bruce to be inadequate when I try to anchor on the asphalt in the Wal Mart parking lot. However, in most other bottoms, it seems to dig right in, and I would agree with Rex that if you lay it down as opposed to drop it covered with 100' of chain, it seems to work better....

Delfin said:

Perhaps you didn't read the entire post......

Delfin: " The idea that the roller bar ensures better setting is debatable, IMHO, as I have never had a Bruce type or other not start to dig in immediately."

Click to expand...

Well, everyone's experience will be different. While we never, so far as I recall, had our Bruce fail to set, it always took a fair amount of dragging across the bottom for it to finally dig in. This has been the experience of the couple of boaters-- power and sail--- we've cruised with in the islands and in Desolation Sound who also have/had Bruces. Always sets, but takes its own sweet time doing so. And the set itself is very "oozy" as opposed to stopping the boat right now, which so far has been our experience with our Rocna.

Now granted, these (along with ours) have been boats with fairly small Bruce anchors--- 33 lbs and 44 lbs. We've not had any experience with a Bruce up in the 100-pound range or larger so its behavior may be totally different in those kinds of sizes and weights. But we can't carry an anchor that big so we were stuck with the performance of the Bruce in a very small size and weight.

That actually was my experience w my Bruce on the Albin in 03 on a trip to Alaska. It may have been our only anchor as I don't recall another. My how things change. Usually it would drag a bit before setting ... That is to develop a great deal of tension on the rode. With our present Claw (nameless) it may be a better anchor in that respect as it has set immediately. There's no reason a copy cat anchor couldn't be better than the original.

That makes me think of an experiment I may very well try w my present Claw and that is to eliminate the center fluke to reduce the probability of only 2 flukes on a Claw setting or penetrating the bottom. If it worked one would need to get a bigger Claw yet to have adequate holding power as blade area would be reduced. It probably dosn't hold much promise but fun to think about as no new anchor has come about that is centered around the Bruce design w the far removed exception that Rex mentioned. Most "new" anchors are similar enough to the parent that one can usually name the parent anchor.

Eric--- The Bruce/Claw is already tested to be one of the lowest holding power anchor designs out there. Removing the center fluke would seem to do little other than reduce the holding power even more, don't you think?

Oh yes Marin but I mentioned that a bigger anchor would be necessary to compensate for the loss of fluke area. A 33lb Claw would normally be good for my Willard so for the 2 claw Claw I'd use a 44lb anchor to modify and perhaps just removing 50% of the center fluke would have the desired effect.

And I still wonder if the tests are as good as they seem to be. When I look at an anchor test I QUESTION EVERYTHING .... especially when advertising for one of the brands tested is prominent within the text of the test. How can the folks running the test say w a straight face that the test is objective. And I still think the Claws are a good anchor as long as the next size larger is used.

manyboats said:

And I still think the Claws are a good anchor as long as the next size larger is used.

Click to expand...

I can't buy into the notion at all that the eleven pound difference between a 33# Bruce and a 44# Bruce is going to make squat-all of a difference in the holding power. Comparing a 33# claw type anchor to Carl's great big heavy one, sure, major difference there. But a mere eleven pounds? No way. Which is backed by the fact that people I know with GB36s and other similar size boats and a 44# Bruce have had every bit as much trouble with it as we did with our 33# Bruce.

Regarding tests, I agree with your basic assessment. But in the case of the Bruce, it has been coming in near or at the bottom of the list in terms of holding power for YEARS in countless tests. Not just a few biased ones, but ALL the tests I have looked at over time. Which to me says there is something to this never-varying result no matter how some tests might be skewed.

When we bought ours the day after getting the boat to Bellingham in 1998, we already knew the Bruce had one of the lowest holding powers of any then-current anchor design in the sizes for boats like ours. But we didn't think low holding power would be an issue in the protected waters we boat in. We thought the ability to set in a variety of bottoms was more important. We were wrong.

Marin said:

When we bought ours the day after getting the boat to Bellingham in 1998, we already knew the Bruce had one of the lowest holding powers of any then-current anchor design in the sizes for boats like ours. But we didn't think low holding power would be an issue in the protected waters we boat in. We thought the ability to set in a variety of bottoms was more important. We were wrong.

Click to expand...

My greatest concern for an anchor here in the San Francisco estuary is for it to stay set or reset reliably when tidal currents reverse, over maximum, uni-directional holding power. Tidal direction here can change 2 times overnight here with currents of 2 knots and more.

Mark,
There was an anchor test that dealt just with that. It was some time ago so not all the newer anchors will be represented but I'll post a list of the anchors that have a strong tendency to stay set and not break out with a reversal. But unless you've got a bottom that not good for anchoring most all anchors should break out and reset or not break out at all.

markpierce said:

My greatest concern for an anchor here in the San Francisco estuary is for it to stay set or reset reliably when tidal currents reverse, over maximum, uni-directional holding power. Tidal direction here can change 2 times overnight here with currents of 2 knots and more.

Click to expand...

Mark--- The situation is the same in the PNW with anchorage currents that can be even stronger; 4 -6 knots in some places. The Bruce IS an anchor that sets easily (in our experience), and I don't recall ever having a problem getting an intial set out of it although it did have to be dragged around a bit at times before it would dig in and grab.

Our complaint was solely with its low holding power under pressure. There are videos you can watch on the web that show how a Bruce/claw type anchor can get into a set-unset-skip, set-unset-skip routine across the bottom. In the videos I've seen the bottom was always sand. So maybe it won't do this in mud.

But as long as you're dealing with fairly firm bottoms like mud (but not soft mud) I would think a Bruce would do very well even in a relatively small size unless you put a lot of pressure on it.

I think a Danforth/Fortress would do even better in a bottom like what you have down there in terms of holding. As I've mentioned, our boat spent the first 25 years of its life in SFO Bay and judging from photos the previous owner sent us it also spent time in the delta and up the river(s). It had a large, heavy Danforth-type anchor on the bow and a slightly smaller (but still heavy) Danforth-type on the stern. The anchor on the bow had a slightly bent shank so it had obviously been subjected to considerable pressure at some point.

When we got the boat to Bellingham we replaced the bow anchor with the Bruce. We later got rid of the heavy stern anchor because its weight discouraged us from using it, but we replaced it with the same design, this time a Fortress.

The times we've used it--- and in some cases it ended up being subjected to a lot of pressure, most recently with a raft of seven boats hanging on it with the anchor deployed straight out from the side of our boat in a 20 knot wind--- it has done very, very well, particularly considering its initial set was accomplished simply by pulling on it by hand. All mud bottoms in these cases.

I don't know if you carry a stern anchor, but for your area I think a Fortress sized to be the main anchor for your boat-- in our case its the FX-23--- would be a good choice and an alternative to the Bruce should you ever experience setting or holding problems with that anchor. And a Fortress is very easy to carry on a swimstep mount, lashed upside down to a handrail, or stowed in a lazarette.

Marin said:

... I don't know if you carry a stern anchor, but for your area I think a Fortress sized to be the main anchor for your boat-- in our case its the FX-23--- would be a good choice and an alternative to the Bruce should you ever experience setting or holding problems with that anchor. And a Fortress is very easy to carry on a swimstep mount, lashed upside down to a handrail, or stowed in a lazarette.

Click to expand...

Got a claw on the bow and a yet-to-be-used Fortress in the lazarette. Don't like Danforth/Fortress-type anchors. They wiggle and pinch fingers, they bring up a lot of mud, and I don't trust them to reset with tidal changes. My idea for the Fortress is for fore-and-aft anchoring where there would be no swiveling. ... Yes, the San Francisco estuary bottom is mostly composed of heavy, sticky mud. Most all anchor types should do well there.

A stern anchor to hold us into the wind and waves is the primary use of our Fortress. This works wonders to eliminate the rolling that can occur on anchor or a mooring buoy when the boat yaws back and forth in the wind or current (or both).

We carry it on a swimstep/transom mount (visible in the photo) so it's very easy to put in the dinghy and take out to deploy We keep its combination rode in a covered milk crate-type box on the aft deck. So it's easy to take the anchor forward (or midships the last time we used it) to deploy it if we want to.

And because the anchor is so light, it's easy to handle the anchor without the finger-pinching issue you mention. This was why we never used the boat's original stern anchor. It was so heavy and awkward it did all things you talked about.

Mark,
It took awhile but just as I was about to give up I found it.
The test was like most anchor tests but w a 140 degree twist. The anchors were set and then tension was applied 140 degrees from the the setting pull. The following list starts at the top w the best performance and the last was the worst of all the anchors that reset. The others I'll not mention but they were not well known at all. The distance noted was the distance it took the anchor to reset and take up the tension. Obviously some didn't break out.

Spade 0"
Bruce 4"
Fortress 6"
Danforth 12"
Barnacle 18"
Bulwagga 2'
Claw 2'
Herreshoff Yachtsman Kedge 3'
Supermax 4'
CQR 9'

It looks like about half of the anchors didn't break out.

Excel #6 galvanized on the way. Highly recommend contacting Rex directly if you are interested. Mike

Posting a few photos of the Excel showing some of the design and construction details. Overall, I'm impressed with the build quality. It's a rather complex design which has been well executed. The Bissalloy shank is visually very distinct from the rest of the anchor.

Mike

Thanks DD for the info and close photos.

I've not seen the Excell close up. The shape of the ballast/ballast chamber in the forefoot is very interesting in that protrudes below the base anchor and is shaped like a "deep vee" hull w lots of deadrise. The stubbed toe point is also interesting and I see it also on the SARCA. That tells me the Excell and the SARCA are meant to be set in an upright position. Laying on their sides the stubbed toe tip would not be an asset.

Not sure I understand them fully but I do think the Excell and the SARCA are close to if not the worlds best anchors. And I have neither:blush

If anybody else is thinking about getting a Sarca, let's talk. We've got a Super Sarca and love it. My 2nd anchor is a SS CQR which is purely decorative. I'd like to have an Excel hanging there but I'm not excited about the air freight. If enough of us were interested though we could likely do a pallet & I expect Rex would work with us to make it happen. PM me if you are interested.

I recently fitted a Super Sarca #6, 22kg. Initially I had trouble with sets, the shackle mounted in the anchor slot, and the shackle attaching it to the chain, were getting tangled. I fitted a gal swivel (not the fancy ss torpedo style I keep as a paperweight) between the swivels, and last Sunday had 3 successive good sets while operating as race committee boat, including a 180 degree windshift which caused no issue (well not for us, but it seemed to bother the competing boats).
I would add my experience and recommendation to Bob`s. Getting together on freight makes sense, sending one from here would be seriously expensive.

Eric - added a few more to assist in the turned down toe analysis.

Mike

bobofthenorth said:

If anybody else is thinking about getting a Sarca, let's talk. We've got a Super Sarca and love it. My 2nd anchor is a SS CQR which is purely decorative. I'd like to have an Excel hanging there but I'm not excited about the air freight. If enough of us were interested though we could likely do a pallet & I expect Rex would work with us to make it happen. PM me if you are interested.

Click to expand...

Now you guys, that's what I call talk in' turkey. I urge you to follow Bob's lead on this. At least until a NA distributor is serious.

Thanks for the pics, DD. I remain convinced that the Excel is the best design out there. Hope to get one at some point. One nice feature is that the stock is make of Bisalloy 80, which is pretty stout stuff.

Excel anchor

Hi to all of you,

DinghyDog

Thanks heaps for your commitment, I am sure it will serve you well, very important to fit a bow shackle with the rounded section through the anchor, this allows full articulation when tide changes, if fitting a swivel then attach another shackle to couple it.

Hi Eric, yes the anchor is very similar to the Super Sarca, no the anchor is designed to engage the toe on its side, if you look at the rear you will see bottom side a straight edge, any force applied this then acts like a brake, transferring load through the shank, combine this the (bowl bus)as I call it on the underside of the fluke, this creates a roll effect further aiding the EXCEL into an upright position, fairly complicated but works a treat.

Anyway Dinghy Dog will be sure to let you know how it works.

Regards Rex.

CEO of Anchor Right Australia.

Rex
Above you say it is "very important to fit a bow shackle with the rounded section through the anchor, this allows full articulation when tide changes"

Yet on your brochure at the bottom of page one on this link

http://www.anchorright.com.au/downloads/anchoring-info.pdf

you say "the D-shackle must be fitted with the bolt through the release slot"

Can you confirm the correct way so there is no confusion please.

Thanks and BTW love my Super Sarca#8

Cheers
Janis

Gemma said:

Rex ..........
Can you confirm the correct way so there is no confusion please.

Thanks and BTW love my Super Sarca#8

Click to expand...

I caught that too and was similarly confused. Enlighten us please Rex.

And I love mine too.

My Super Sarca is set up with the shackle pin in the slot. The U connects with the U of another shackle to attach the chain. I added a gal swivel between the 2 shackles to stop them getting caught up.
I think PeterB has the same set up. Not sure how this translates to the Excel, but it might. Interested to see what Rex says.

Hi to all.
A question that regulary comes up, the Super Sarca has the D shackle with the srew bolt through through the slide rail, if it is fitted the other way around the shackle can end up sideways through the slot and jam, with e Excel it is the other way around, if you were to fit it up the same as the Super Sarca the chain or swivel can slide down the side of the shackle due to the thinner shank and again jam dragging the anchor from the side of the shank rather than central.

With the plough type anchors their shanks are quite thick not allowing--enough room for the chain to slide in and Jam,the Excel shank is a lot thinner due to the Excels design, it demands this concept, that is why we use bisaloy, I recommend to use bow shackles on the Excel, fit them with the screw pin through the chain-- swivel, as they are now captivated they cannot slide in beside the shank, the bow shackle works a treat is it fully articulates allowing a central pull at all angles.

Good to hear from you Gemma, I have often thought of you during some pretty wild weather, I hope you kept safe and are well, I hope the anchor is living up to what I preach.

Regards Rex.

Thanks Rex.
A reminder, recently I`ve seen boats with anchor shackle pins not safety wired, or correct term, moused. Our aircraft experts will know everything possible gets lock-wired,like sump plugs on competition autos. Not difficult, ss wire single or stranded, is readily available.

Hi Bruce.

We do on most occasions tell out customers to wire of -- mouse their shackles, strangely enough it seems to fall on deaf ears, not bad for buisness as we have re sold a suprisingly amount of anchors to customers that freely admit they have only hand tightened their shackles and didn't mouse them either.

Regards Rex.

Guys,
I have had my Sarca Excel #8 on Tidahapah for some time now and even with the limited work I have given it I am very pleased.
One highlight was recently the Boss and I were anchored of Moon Point (Fraser Island) in the afternoon.
Just before dark we got a serious wind shift that I wasn't happy with.
With a little deliberation we decided to move accross the water and anchor of Big Woody Island. We were still to be exposed but I felt not as dangerous.
Anchored up with plenty of chain about 70 mts in 8 mts of water.
Deployed the flopper stoppers and started to sit it out.
Bugger it got pretty dirty and the tide run was completely savage as well.
Managed to bend one flopper arm and pull out a couple of securing pins.
Stayed awake all night on watch but anchor held like sh*t on a blanket.
Next morning at daylight, picked up the pick and headed into the marina at Urangan as it kept blowing for a few more days.
Wind was up to 40 knots and savage short sea. Really happy with the anchor that I had deployed.
Another very happy customer , fantastic insurance.

Benn