Real Anchor loads

Eric,

We are still at the damn dock in La Conner. Still doing boat work and provisioning. Our weather here got real good. Full sun and temps in the uppper 60's.

I just got my teak rails redone with Cetol Natural Teak. Today the last coat of gloss goes on. Shiny! Also had the prop shaft and rudder shaft repacked.

I saw Rocna's (R) and Manson Supreme's dragging along the surface refusing to even start to set in Rex's DVD. It confirms to me that the anchoring element brought up recently that the bottom is the greatest variable in anchoring. I suspect Marin found a bottom that perhaps no anchor would perform in. There may be such a place near Bellingham as he has repeatedly mentioned that others on his float have had the same experience but he has not repeated the dragging or breaking out since he switched to the Rocna. So it's not far fetched to think there may be a bottom they all go to that is bad for the Claw and OK for the Rocna. Gives us someth'in to talk about though.

The Sarca in the dvd while in the veering test was about 2" above the surface clearly set and not far from being buried. It showed no sign of breaking out and did'nt seem to roll at all either.

Rex says that R and MS copied the Sarca.....but Rocna Smith has another story.

Numerous tests were made w a PU truck at fairly high speeds......faster than most anyone would go to set an anchor. Interestingly all the anchors seemed to sort-of hop almost out and then go right back down again. If I was Rex I'd get a truck w a much lower gear.

In 1 on 1 tests w the MS and the Sarca the Supreme the Supreme was inconsistant.......once dragging and once setting as the Sarca except that the Sarca promptly flipped right side up while the MS slowly rolled over and slowly dug in on it's side.

There is footage of a Delta dragging on it's side and never showing any tendency to set at all.

Using a tow bar w the R & MS on one side and the Sarca Ex-cel on the the Sarca out pulled them both.

I think this is a see'in is believing thing and Rex dos'nt seem like someone that would rig the test but I'm sure the footage showing his product performing best was chosen but that's to be expected. I think most any of us would do that and I was very impressed w what I saw. Some of the footage would have been better w a double image showing the tow bar (to judge tension) and the anchors in the act. I was most impressed w the Super Sarca's ability to set without any trace of hesitation. And in the West Marine anchor test they gave the Sarca good marks for short scope performance.

When I get down south I'm either going to get a Sea Dog Claw or (if I can find a place to buy one) a Super Sarca. Even though I tend not to trust things called "super".

manyboats said:

Numerous tests were made w a PU truck at fairly high speeds......faster than most anyone would go to set an anchor. Interestingly all the anchors seemed to sort-of hop almost out and then go right back down again. If I was Rex I'd get a truck w a much lower gear.

Click to expand...

My former GMC 1-ton pickup truck had a non-synchronized "granny" gear where the max speed capable was around 10 mph so was very capable of a slow crawl.

Larry H said:

Marin,

When you refer to dragging, do you mean that after getting a set, the anchor then drags, or that the anchor never gets a set? To me, dragging is what happens after getting a set, later, like when the wind comes up.

Click to expand...

Our Bruce always set quickly. Never had a problem with it setting or holding in light winds. The problems we and a lot of other people I know or have talked to occured when the wind kicked up. Even at a 7 or 8 to 1 scope the anchor is phone to dragging under load. Which is not surprising as it has always been rated at one near the bottom in terms of holding power. I have met so many people in the last 13 years who've had holding problems with their Bruce anchors-- of all sizes, not just the smaller ones---that I've become convinced it's a poor design for a smaller anchor. So we gave up on it.

I learned early on that a Bruce has to be larger than the Bruce sizing table would recommend. On my 31 ft 8,000lb trimaran I had a 33lb, my 22ft C-Dory carried a 17.5lb, and my 37 trawler had a 44lb, all genuine Bruce. I think the advantage in a Bruce is the rapid set in various, possibly unknown bottoms. As you say, the drawback is lower rated holding power. The only compensation is to go larger.

For me, the killer was the ability of a Bruce to pick up a large rock. After two rocks, I said enough.

Has anyone picked up a rock with the Rocna, Scarna, or Manson anchors?

Larry H said:

I learned early on that a Bruce has to be larger than the Bruce sizing table would recommend. On my 31 ft 8,000lb trimaran I had a 33lb, my 22ft C-Dory carried a 17.5lb, and my 37 trawler had a 44lb, all genuine Bruce. I think the advantage in a Bruce is the rapid set in various, possibly unknown bottoms. As you say, the drawback is lower rated holding power. The only compensation is to go larger.

For me, the killer was the ability of a Bruce to pick up a large rock. After two rocks, I said enough.

Has anyone picked up a rock with the Rocna, Scarna, or Manson anchors?

Click to expand...

all anchors will pick up a rock...chunk of clay...wad of mud...no anchor is immune..hopefully you have an electronic anchor watch so you're not the SOB that stays up all night to see if you anchor is now useless till cleared..

psneeld,
How are you going to pick up a rock w a Delta, Forfjord, CQR, XYZ or Spade?

Larry and Marin,
I've been looking at all the different Claws and am seeing very noticeable differences one to the next. At this point the Sea Dog Claw looks like it has sharper and longer flukes. Larry I think you anchored so many times you should expect to pic up a rock every few years or so .....don'cha think? I'd find that acceptable.

manyboats said:

psneeld,
How are you going to pick up a rock w a Delta, Forfjord, CQR, XYZ or Spade?

Larry and Marin,
I've been looking at all the different Claws and am seeing very noticeable differences one to the next. At this point the Sea Dog Claw looks like it has sharper and longer flukes. Larry I think you anchored so many times you should expect to pic up a rock every few years or so .....don'cha think? I'd find that acceptable.

Click to expand...

I gave you more choices than a rock....

Sometimes.......

Touring K dock, I've noted more than a few larger boats (20 percent longer and up to 100 percent greater windage) with 15-kilogram or 35-pound Bruces/claws on their bows. Meanwhile, I'm "under-anchored" with a (still unfailing) 15-kilogram Bruce knock-off. Perhaps thanks to the thick, sticky-muddy bottoms here.

manyboats said:

Larry I think you anchored so many times you should expect to pic up a rock every few years or so .....don'cha think? I'd find that acceptable.

Click to expand...

If the rock is picked up when setting, then you many not really be set. Being anchored with a rock is not good if the wind comes up!

The last rock wedged in between the outer fluke and the shank. It was huge. I could not raise it out of the water and had to slowly motor to a dock. Good thing there was a dock.

It took two men and a large 8 ft pry bar to dislodge the rock. It also took both of us roll it over the side of the dock into 30 ft of water!

If this had happened in a remote area with no docks, the only solution I have come up with would be to beach the boat and possibly abandon the anchor. I guess I could have also created my own mooring! LOL

Anyway, that was it for Mr. Bruce being my primary anchor. I still carry ole Bruce in the lazarette as a spare.

I might get one of these newfangled spade anchors after you guys get the beta testing done! LOL

Larry H said:

It took two men and a large 8 ft pry bar to dislodge the rock. It also took both of us roll it over the side of the dock into 30 ft of water!

Click to expand...

I've got a hammer, I'll hammer in the evening, I'll hammer in the morning, All over ...

OK so the rock was such a mega experience it made you mad. I see you're mak'in ole Bruce stand in the corner.

What's this Spade talk? I thought you bought a Delta. Do you know anybody in the PNW that has a steel Spade? I knew somebody close to here that had a Spade on a big sailboat......he liked it. If the Spade has a weak link I'll bet it's setting so if somebody has a lot of time w a Spade and it has set dependably I do'nt see how you could go wrong. Well.....you could loose a few extra bucks.

psneeld wrote:
"I gave you more choices than a rock...." Indeed you did. I was hung up on Larry's rock.

I think this 'dragging after setting' issue is an important one, because it explains why concave (as opposed to convex) fluked anchors will indeed dig a trench, compared to the lesser bottom damage done by a more plough-shaped anchor, but we are really talking hypotheticals here, as we all spend a lot of effort to never anchor where we will be exposed to the sort of conditions where a set anchor drags anyway, and 99.9 times out 100 we are successful. So the concave anchors, which work well, just tend to bring up more mud from one place and leave a bigger hole, that's all. Not really a major issue in all but the most 'environmentally delicate' bottoms.
The really important bit is the faster way the new roll-bar anchors set, and in that they are comparable.

Larry H said:

Has anyone picked up a rock with the Rocna, Sarca, or Manson anchors?

Click to expand...

Larry, I have to admit, one time my Sarca did pick up a rock, and I still marvel at how it did. The bottom was quite firm, and we were off a small island at the time, stopping for a quick hot drink. I noticed immediately we were moving under conditions where it just should not happen, even on a short, coffee break type scope. So I hauled her up, noticing the winch working that bit harder on the way up, so stopped it just clear of the water, not knowing what it might bring aboard, and there was a football-sized rock, balancing - literally - on the middle crest of the fluke, which is convex remember, to it was like sitting a round ball on the peak of a gable roof, and a light kick with the foot was all it took to dislodge. It must have had just enough friction leaning back against the part of the shank that comes up from the fluke to hold it there. It was no drama, because it affected performance so grossly one would notice it straight away and investigate before trusting the set, but, yes...it can happen.

I du'no Peter ......the fastest setting anchor I've had was a Danforth. And the slowest setting anchor I've had is the Supreme. And that guy that designed the Spade proved that the most efficient shape to resist movement is concave. I will submit that the highest holding power anchors have made sacrifices in other important performance elements. Kinda like driv'in a dragster to work.
Or perhaps driving a Fararai would be better .....or perhaps getting up a bit early and driving a Rolls. Or if you're almost broke a small old car would be best. If I had a super high holding power anchor I'd prolly want to trade off some of that super performance for some other nice well mannered features.

I think your anchor does everything well and one cannot really do better than that eh? What anchors have absolutely no weak links or faults. Those are the anchors to buy .....I think.

Eric, When I mentioned a spade anchor, I was thinking of a roll bar type. I now see that there is an actual 'Spade' anchor.

I did buy a Delta, but its used, and wasn't that expensive. I am still in the 'wait and let the other guy test the new stuff' mode. I might get a new style hook when they start being in the used stores. So far the Delta is doing a good job. I'll know more after this summer.

The last coat of 'shiny' went on my handrails today. Another job done, and a little closer to leaving for the summer.

manyboats said:

I suspect Marin found a bottom that perhaps no anchor would perform in.

Click to expand...

Our Bruce dragged in a variety of bottoms under higher loads. Mud, sand, weedy mud. The people I have met that had dragging problems with the Bruce said the same thing. It's simply a poor design for holding power under pressure, at least in the smaller sizes. Get up to 100 pounds or more and it might be better in this regard. But we're not going to carry a 100-plus pound anchor on our boat even if it would fit the pulpit. So in my book the Bruce is not a reliable anchor for boats our size in terms of holding. And if it can't be counted on to hold when the wind comes up it doesn't matter how reliably it sets.

I'm not interested in theory or what someone thinks an anchor will do based on what its design looks like. I am only interested in real-life performance that we experience with our boat. The Bruce fell well short of our requirements so it had to go and it did. So far the Rocna has performed as advertised, even to the point of holding two boats under conditions in which our old Bruce most likely would have dragged trying to hold just us.

markpierce said:

Touring K dock, I've noted more than a few larger boats (20 percent longer and up to 100 percent greater windage) with 15-kilogram or 35-pound Bruces/claws on their bows. Meanwhile, I'm "under-anchored" with a (still unfailing) 15-kilogram Bruce knock-off. Perhaps thanks to the thick, sticky-muddy bottoms here.

Click to expand...

I'm with you, Mark. The Bruce comes highly recommended by several boating instructors in the CA Delta area with many thousands more hours of experience than many of us. My Bruce lookalike has never failed me, even in a 35 kt blow. Do I wish I had upsized for even more confidence? Yes, so I added 90 feet of chain to compensate. I anchor dozens of times a year and have NEVER had a problem.

I've thought quite a bit about this dragging thing. I think the thing about dragging, after the anchor has set, say in unexpected blow conditions, is the way it drags rather than whether it does or does not, as all have their holding limit. Some, like the Bruce, and maybe the Danforth I suspect, will drag along still set for a bit, but then because the shape does not favour it digging in further, will pop out, bounce along a bit, then attempt to set again, and may - or may not - depending on the forces involved and the speed of the drag, and the bottom type. Others, like the Rocna, Manson, Spade, XYZ, etc, will tend to dig in further and just drag through the bottom for a bit, but in the end will scoop up and hold so much bottom they either prevail and stay set and stop moving, or they pop out. After which their ability to rid themselves of the accumulated bottom and re-set again will decide what happens next. Some, like the Rocna and maybe the Manson Supreme are better at this than others, because the roll bar keeps their tips downward pointing which is a must for quick re-set. The third kind of drag is what you might call 'controlled' drag, and is what a well set plow shaped anchor does, (and in that sense the Sarca fits in there also), the operative word being well set. If well set, if the hold is overcome, instead of popping out, the anchor stays buried because the shape of the fluke, like a plow, keeps it headed south as it were, and by it's shape it can shed accumulated bottom substrate, and move. It will drag a few feet of so, then often hold again, so the boat may move a short distance, but is not dragging in an uncontrolled way.
Some have called this 'streamlined in the direction of the pull', and do not favour it because it seems counter-intuitive to provide less resistance in the direction of pull - fair enough. However, I think of it as shaped to not only shed bottom coming up, but when buried, to provide a high amount of resistance, but if this is overcome, then the shape, as it moves forward, tends to drive it further down, rather than fill with bottom it can't dispose of, whereas concave fluke types either 'win the tug-o-war' or have to come up to spit the dummy (bottom), and try again.

Of course, all anchors will have an absolute limit. It's when that occurs, and what happens then that gets exciting. It still clearly pays to not expose your boat to that extreme if at all possible - and we do. Which fortunately, is why so many happy owners of other types remain happy with their choice, I guess. As has been said - "an anchor never fails you until it does..."

Peter B said:

I've thought quite a bit about this dragging thing. I think the thing about dragging, after the anchor has set, say in unexpected blow conditions, is the way it drags rather than whether it does or does not, as all have their holding limit. Some, like the Bruce, and maybe the Danforth I suspect, will drag along still set for a bit, but then because the shape does not favour it digging in further, will pop out, bounce along a bit, then attempt to set again, and may - or may not - depending on the forces involved and the speed of the drag, and the bottom type. Others, like the Rocna, Manson, Spade, XYZ, etc, will tend to dig in further and just drag through the bottom for a bit, but in the end will scoop up and hold so much bottom they either prevail and stay set and stop moving, or they pop out. After which their ability to rid themselves of the accumulated bottom and re-set again will decide what happens next. Some, like the Rocna and maybe the Manson Supreme are better at this than others, because the roll bar keeps their tips downward pointing which is a must for quick re-set. The third kind of drag is what you might call 'controlled' drag, and is what a well set plow shaped anchor does, (and in that sense the Sarca fits in there also), the operative word being well set. If well set, if the hold is overcome, instead of popping out, the anchor stays buried because the shape of the fluke, like a plow, keeps it headed south as it were, and by it's shape it can shed accumulated bottom substrate, and move. It will drag a few feet of so, then often hold again, so the boat may move a short distance, but is not dragging in an uncontrolled way.
Some have called this 'streamlined in the direction of the pull', and do not favour it because it seems counter-intuitive to provide less resistance in the direction of pull - fair enough. However, I think of it as shaped to not only shed bottom coming up, but when buried, to provide a high amount of resistance, but if this is overcome, then the shape, as it moves forward, tends to drive it further down, rather than fill with bottom it can't dispose of, whereas concave fluke types either 'win the tug-o-war' or have to come up to spit the dummy (bottom), and try again.

Of course, all anchors will have an absolute limit. It's when that occurs, and what happens then that gets exciting. It still clearly pays to not expose your boat to that extreme if at all possible - and we do. Which fortunately, is why so many happy owners of other types remain happy with their choice, I guess. As has been said - "an anchor never fails you until it does..."

Click to expand...

You are kidding about the Danforth statement....I hope...otherwise I'm not sure how you think anchors work.

I try very hard and give credit to people in these forums till they come out with stuff that's OFF THE MAP about things....The danforth will dig till the pull is overcome by resistance or the flukes break off. That's why they blow all other anchors off the scale for holding in similat situations...the problem is they are finicky...but a set one will never fail in a straight line pull unless IT breaks or the bottom breaks free (assuming the scope doesn't exceed it's design angle but that's true of all anchors except cement blocks)

Clearing up a myth

Hi all,
Rex from Anchor Right Australia here, look fellers I don’t think I will ever convince any of you Re the design of our anchors’ that is the ones that don’t have one, Marin I don’t know why we haven’t the specialized Marine authorities over here with the level of intelligence that you perceive Re your comments of a slotted shank.

As you know all of our anchors, both designs and all sizes are S/H/H/Power certified, Marin the slotted shank was scrutinized not just by our Marine Authorities but also Lloyds, Lloyds witnessed this testing and also approved the slotted Sarca shank.

Due to the design of the Sarca anchors slot rigorous testing-- attention was given-- focused on accidentally tripping of the anchor when anchored in all weather conditions, now I’m talking over an eight month period of field testing involving marine Authorities, marine survey officers, at least three different officers from ROBERTSONS, there were boat builders, marine distributors, conservation officers and a number of Journalists witnessed much of this testing.

If there was any truth in Marins statement Re Sarcas slotted shank we would have absolutely never received certification, further if there was any chance of our slotted shank accidentally tripping the anchor don’t you think someone there would have been able to match Marins intelligence and clearly point out this incredible fault.

Marin clearly is clever with his words, (slotted shank anchors) Marin please refer to the slotted shank you are referring to and the manufacturer of that product, if you have any evidence that the Sarca will drag rearward because of its trip then please present evidence of this as we have been on the market now for 17 years, not one recorded instant of your propaganda.

Peter B, maybe you can take a shot of the rear of your Sarca and post it on the forum to observe the following, there are two large bars of steel across its rear, this weight is the pendulum that resets the trip the moment the anchor is broken free, further if you sail 180 degrees straight over the anchor this weight combined with the large reversed arrow shape fluke simply will dig in, if you try to pull the Sarca rearward the Sarca will break out not unlike any other anchor design in this situation with a few exceptions, it will stand on its hoop, as the boat drifts back it will then pull the D Shackle up the slot until it reaches its launching position roll over dropping of all weed and mud during this process and reset rapidly.

Why do you think the concave design have two holes for the D shackle ? It is a concave design totally no comparison with Sarcas trip release, after viewing the rear of the Sarca, now view the rear of the concave slotted shank anchor, the fluke plate is concave-- not convex, has no added weight to assist rest of the shackle and nowhere near the wedging or digging concept of the Sarca when pulled rearward.

Psneeld, believe me, do not confuse my comments with the design you are thinking of purchasing as it is of concave design, it will serve you well but will not respond as Peter B Sarca does in change of tide or sailing over the anchor for reasons explained. They are two very different concepts.
Regards Rex.
CEO of Anchor Right Australia.

confusion with slotted shanks

Sorry about this long drawn out post, I took a look at the forum and read Psneelds last post and a shiver went up my spine as I could see he was comparing the slotted shanks of Sarca convex and the other concave slotted shank.

This is the problem when someone makes comments like slotted shanks cannot be trusted without specifying the brand, you get an argument for and against, one from someone that has never used a Sarca, and one from Peter B who has never had a problem .

Obviously Psneeld doesn’t have much take on Marins version and chooses to believe Peter B, this is fine but Psneeld is not talking Sarca and making up his mind on for and against slotted shanks argument, very dangerous situation to be lead into as Psneeld commented he would fix the D shackle permanent to the slot on the concave like you do with the Sarca shank, even the manufacturer of the concave brand recommends otherwise.

Marin I say again unless you can provide evidence that some drag their Sarca’s because of the Sarca slotted shank arrangement, then please rephrase your comments, be more specific to the brand only that you have evidence of to prevent a recurrence of what may have taken place.

Many boats,
Sorry about the Super bit but you are taking it out of context from no fault of your own, the original anchor was called Sarca, when we upgraded them for Super High holding power we simply renamed them Super Sarca for that reason only, yes I am negotiating with Joe Smith at the moment for a couple of pellet loads of mixed anchors, sizes and the two brands Excel and Super Sarca, I will update you on the situation when I hear more.

Thanks for your comments on the video, what you see is what you get, please understand all anchor testing for Super High holding power was done under water, it was much easier to compare them where clear vision was a must when doing a demonstration such as ours, can you imagine trying to pull three anchors under water with the boom.

No one anchor had any favors they were all pulled in the same conditions and yes under water all of them will work considerably better, every anchor design does.

You can do as you wish with the video, copy it or pass it on but by all means if you have any questions please ask, remember this, there is no such thing as the perfect anchor.

One other point, the West Marine test was done with the original Sarca anchor, not the Super Sarca, the Super Sarca is far removed from its original design and up to date has produced marginal holding power loads well in excess of our competitors, well at least the ones on our holding power test cert comparison by
ROBERTSONS.

Regards Rex.
CEO of Anchor Right Australia.

WOW.....much to read this morning, to dissect and understand. This is clearly the best anchor discussion we've ever had. But it's hard to understand the many words of many posters. Now I'm going to add to that problem.

Rex, I can see how you can stand proudly behind your anchor when such high and mighty in the cloud people have blessed it's presentation of performance's.
But I'm w my fellows here I think in that if the pull of an anchor rode changes to about 120 or 140 degrees from where it was set how could it NOT break the anchor out? The shank being buried deep enough that the shackle would need to slide through the bottom and that resistance would prevent it? Or does the shackle jam and prevent shackle movement. Even if both happened I would think when one came close to 180 degrees the shackle would move up the shank and trip a properly set anchor. I watched your incredible DVD and was amazed at how quickly and positively your Super Sarca set so many times in the video. I was under the assumption that the slot was justified by the ability for the Sarca to reset. I just do'nt see how the slotted anchors would not upset themselves on a pull reversal. If the drag went around as in your video the slotted anchor would perform as a non-slotted anchor but on a reversal?

I would think any anchor would break out with a 180 degree reversal of pull. And most anchors will reset. But w an anchor that is not perfect (all as you pointed out) resetting is not a sure thing as Marin has pointed out. I think we are thinking as the bulk of anchor buyers would think. As soon as they thought of the 180 reversal they'd say nix on that one. Convincing engineers and certifiers is one thing but convincing buyers is much more important to you Rex and I want you to succeed here. I think it says somewhere in our book by Chapman (in some year) that slotted anchors are not to be trusted for overnight mooring. I think most people will view the slot as questionable and buy another anchor. I also think Manson could/would sell many more anchors w/o the slot.

Excluding the anti-snag feature of the slot will the Super Sarca perform the same way without the slot? People will view the slot as a gimmick and will shy away from it. On the other hand if you drop the slot people will think maybe there are other features of the anchor that are questionable too. And marketing two different anchors would be more expensive but It's my opinion that you should. Try to view this as feedback rather than me trying to tell you how to run your business. I personally want your anchor but think there's only about a 25% chance I'll use the slot.

Hi Many boats. No mate I could not really care what customers say about our product but it is frustrating when someone has an agenda and has absolutely no understanding of our concept, the only way you or anyone is going to find the benefits of our product is to use it then make a report not an assumption.

Yes I know it makes interesting reading and brings about a barrage of comments, one should understand we have been in testing and developing anchors now for at least twenty years and yes we are extremely passionate but not blinded.

The testing you see in the video is a required length of Rhode requested by the National Marine Safety Committee at no less than eight to one, this is to allow all anchor designs we tested against to reach their full holding power potential, meaning if when we do holding power tests some anchors would not produce their full potential in holding power on a shorter scope, they are the N.M.S.C . and Lloyds rules for S/H/H/Power testing procedure under a new section not long come in under section 7 for commercial vessels testing chains anchors and ropes.

If the Sarca is well set or only half buried it will follow your boat around in most situations with changing in tides and winds, the amazing thing with the Sarca this movement will continue to bury it deeper depending on how much anchor Rhode you have out and the type of substrate you are anchored in, I can explain this in more detail but its two am in the morning and I am losing interest.

Rarely will the D shackle be pulled sideways to the rear of the slot in most situations, testing has proved regardless if shackle finds its way to the rear of the anchor will stay set and still screw around without breaking free, if in the unlikely situation should you sail directly over the Sarca it is not common for the chain to create full load central to the shank as the chain is normally pulled from its last load position which is normally of side to a central pull, again the Sarca will screw around and reline depending on how much force is applied and how deep it is buried.

Even sailing over the anchor with a direct central to the shank pull will not unset the anchor if it is well buried, it will depend on the load force applied to break it out, I say break, as it is not tripped out, it will not drag rearward as explained earlier, worst scenario if does break out in a reversal pull it will roll over sheading all mud, weed and slam in again with in the distance of its fluke.

Eric if you take a look at the letter I received on our web site from a guy with a 40 foot yacht that was caught in the path of the unforgettable Tsunami that hit Phuket, their were three boats that survived that and all had Sarca anchors, should read their story as it is testament in the real world of our products performance, the other boats were either washed out to see or smashed into the rocks.

No Eric the anchor does not need the slot to perform, Yes and you can simply slide the lock bolt up to the shackle and lock of the rail if you have no need for the trip release, I can see you haven’t got your head around the concept of the Sarca and I am not sure I understand some of your meaning but any way I will give it some thought and come back.
Regards Rex.
CEO of Anchor Right Australia.

One of the bad habits of a Bruce--- at least a smaller Bruce in the 33-44 pound range-- is it's "hopping" tendency. We saw this in several videos way back when we were shopping for a Bruce replacement. The anchor sets, the pull is increased, and the anchor comes out. But rather than resetting and holding it starts to "hop"--- partially resetting, then coming out sliding across the bottom a short distance, then partially resetting, coming out and sliding across the bottom, and so on. This is under a fairly high load. This was just one factor in our final determination that, while a Bruce sets quickly and reliably it just can't be trusted under higher loads. At least not at the sizes carried on boats our size. Not to say it will always drag. Ours stayed put much more often than it dragged. But after a few holding failures, a couple of them serious, and combined with similar experiences we heard from other boaters, it was obvious to us that the anchor is not trustworthy and it had to go.

At last count about four or five boats around us in our marina have acquired Rocnas within the last five years. These boats range from a 50' Nordhavn to a 40-something foot sloop In each case, from chatting with the owner when I happened to see him, the Rocna replaced a Bruce and did so for exactly the same reasons we replaced ours.

psneeld,
Are you saying a well set anchor in a good bottom will not break out even under ultra high tension? The XYZ man says that but I know of no other. Drago of XYZ says the 5/16ths chain will break first. He wanted me to find a big fishing boat and try to pull the XYZ out. Thought that was too much to ask so never did. I thought it was common knowledge that if you pulled on an anchor enough it would break out. No anchor test that I have ever read has broken their rode pulling on an anchor. Some have documented a 5000lb pull. XYZ says the've done 9000.

I'm still trying to get my head around the Sarca slot and it's looking better but I still think it would pull out on a reversal but then any anchor would so it's hard to lay it out as a criticism or fault. I guess if I was 100% OK w the slot that would save a lot of trouble setting trip lines. Nice thought.

Who sells the Sarka in the US?

manyboats said:

f
I thought it was common knowledge that if you pulled on an anchor enough it would break out.

Click to expand...

Eric--- I suspect that it all depends on the size of the anchor, the depth of the set, the strength of the rode, and so on. But I agree with you---- I cannot conceive of an anchor the size most of carry on our 30-50 foot boats not breaking out of a "normal" bottom before the rode broke, particularly an all-chain rode. Perhaps if the anchor was caught on a rock or something this could happen. Or if you could take a backhoe down and dig a deep hole, drop the anchor in it and then cover it up again. But under normal circumstances I find it almost impossible to believe that an anchor of the types most of have would stay put in a sand, mud, etc. bottom under a pull strong enough to break the rode. Unless the rode was way undersized or defective.

Anyway, no matter what the anchor did I suspect that on most boats the hardware securing the rode to the boat would break before rode did. The exception perhaps being a proper Samson post that went all the way down to the keel.

Marin,
Look on the XYZ web site under testing or how we tested.
xyzanchor.com

psneeld,
On the Sarca DVD during one of the bar pull tests a Danforth broke out while setting and immediately reset. It's hard to tell because the camera is "looking" at the bar a lot of the time but I think that's what happened.
There is the stratified bottoms too. What if there was 4" of soft sand and hard packed clay under. Any anchor I can think of would drag on that. Time after time I'm think'in the comment about the bottom being the biggest variable in anchoring is the biggest break though In anchoring. To me anyway.

jeffnick,
Nobody but we anticipate that soon there will be a distributor.

the last page has given me a headache...rex seemed to think I was making a bunch of assumptions based on what I'm not sure...well I'm not gonna waste my time....

and others need to read a lot more closely...I haven't taken any firm stand one way or another ....but if a video showed a danforth..set well... breaking out and not digging in deeper or stopped because the force wasn't great enough..well I say bullcrap unless the whole bottom gave way in such a way NO anchor would hold. Been there...done that...have enough practical and engineering background to know better...and most anchor tests back that up..

There's some good stuff here...but I'm out of it now with all the finger pointing...most that do it should turn it right around...