Anchor Tests

[backinblue]

I hate to open up this can of worms again and hope it doesn't turn into my anchor is better than yours. I hope most of you know Practical Sailor, but if you don't you should. Although they are sailing-oriented, they review all kinds of marine gear, equipment, products, etc. They are very thorough and unbiased. I thought I would share this latest that just came into my inbox. Have at it!

https://www.practical-sailor.com/sa...ts&utm_campaign=WIR20210103-AnchorsSandAndMud

 

[Nomad Willy]

blackinblue,
Good anchor read and seems fairly unbiased.
Since this is the first anchor testing for years it should be welcomed by all.
And almost everything they observed had been observed before w almost the same results. They seemed to have more trouble w flipping over at a 180 degree pull change.

The anchor (or anchors) that had no trouble at all was/were the Excel, Spade and Kobra.
Several others like the slotted shank anchors didn’t re-set as quickly as non-slotted anchors but only on a 180 degree reversal and “summersault” as they said. Picking up seaweed going backwards or ?
Interestingly they only recommended two anchors, the SARCA Excel and the Ultra. At the price I wouldn’t recommend it at all but some have $.
They didn’t seem to understand the SARCA slot system nor did they attempt to explain it. But the “summersault” must be a rare occurrence.

 

[backinblue]

Thing about Practical Sailor is that they accept no sponsors and are unbiased (IMO). They also do very thorough testing, more so than others I've seen. from these tests, the spade and Ultra perform similar but the spade gets the nod at lower cost. Either would be my first choice if buying a new anchor. No need really for a rollbar as far as I can tell. I would buy the Ultra if appearance matters and the spade if it didn't. (I think you already know what I have)

 

[rslifkin]

I'm a little disappointed that they didn't include the Vulcan in that test. From the SV Panope tests, it appears to be in the same class as the Spade and Ultra performance wise. And it's the cheapest of the 3 by a good margin.

 

[Nomad Willy]

One thing I don’t think they should have mentioned .... throat angle.

What most perceive it to be .. it is not.

What it really is IMO is a line from the rode/shank attach point along the top or center (nobodies ever said) of the shank fwd. But if you were referring to a Bugle you’d almost have it right. But on a Claw ....

What it should be IMO is a line from the attach point (shank) to the center of the fluke area. That would have some meaning as the line thus described would largely control the fluke angle of attack under dynamic use. And THAT does have meaning. But it’s not something that can be easily seen and used in conversation. I’m going to try and cease using the expression and invite you to do that too. I just don’t see how it can be used objectively and correctly such that it has understandable meaning.

Yet PS used it.
No comment about it at all (that I saw) They shouldn’t use it w/o clarification. IMO

 

[rsn48]

Article date 2013.

 

[NowhereHome]

At the price I wouldn’t recommend it at all but some have $.

for 25 KG anchor It's $700 for a Rocna or $2400 for an ultra. Ouch.

 

[mvweebles]

I'm a little disappointed that they didn't include the Vulcan in that test. From the SV Panope tests, it appears to be in the same class as the Spade and Ultra performance wise. And it's the cheapest of the 3 by a good margin.

Article is from 2013 and predates the Vulcan and others. It's a good article.

I've been a subscriber to PS for years. Has been a bit sad to see them lose relevance. They rarely do this type of comparison testing of high-cost items anymore. That said, they did a decent review of anchor shackles a year or so ago that was helpful (spoiler: mostly not worth the cost and effort)

SV Panope does very good testing. And has been at it now for several years.

Peter

 

[O C Diver]

Another waypoint with maybe some value.

I thought this was interesting:

In order to simplify the testing, we used relatively small anchors, less than 20 pounds, suitable for use on a 20- to 25-foot trailer-sailer. Size and weight will have an impact on an anchors ability to reset, but comparing this tests results to those of the 2001 test-which featured 10- to 35-pound anchors-it appears that smaller anchors will perform similarly to their larger brethren in this kind of test. Well be able to confirm our theory soon enough, as we plan to follow up with a veer test of heavier anchors later this year.

So basically there testing small anchors, and while they think the big brothers will perform the same way, they are only theorizing. Wonder if they did the follow up test to confirm that.

The reason I find this note worthy is that most of the new generation anchors have a sharp point on the front of the fluke. On the flip tests, do you think initial bottom penetration with a 20 pound anchor will be the same as a 60+ pound anchor?

Ted

 

[rslifkin]

In general, a larger anchor should set more easily in most bottoms, especially weeds and such. But I'd expect most of the differences between types to remain.

 

[Nomad Willy]

It’s odd that they say “used shackle hole and not slots for re-set tests”.

But then they said “ During the 180-degree turn tests, the slots worked perfectly: The anchors pulled out backward easily, but the distance taken for the shackle to re-engage at the shank end meant both anchors took much longer to reset than those that were not slotted.”

I know on the SARCA a special shackle is recommended. So it’s quite likely they used whatever was handy .. or?

 

[Peter B]

It’s odd that they say “used shackle hole and not slots for re-set tests”.

But then they said “ During the 180-degree turn tests, the slots worked perfectly: The anchors pulled out backward easily, but the distance taken for the shackle to re-engage at the shank end meant both anchors took much longer to reset than those that were not slotted.”

I know on the SARCA a special shackle is recommended. So it’s quite likely they used whatever was handy .. or?

Eric, I think you hit the nail on the head. Clearly these testers had no real idea what the slot is for. That being for retrieving a jammed anchor, which might otherwise have to be abandoned, rather than just making it easier to break out of a grippy set - although it does help there as well.

And yes, the manufacturer is not kidding when he stipulates exactly the type of shackle necessary for the slot to work properly and safely. I suspect you were right there also.

 

[BruceK]

Eric, I think you hit the nail on the head. Clearly these testers had no real idea what the slot is for. That being for retrieving a jammed anchor, which might otherwise have to be abandoned, rather than just making it easier to break out of a grippy set - although it does help there as well.

And yes, the manufacturer is not kidding when he stipulates exactly the type of shackle necessary for the slot to work properly and safely. I suspect you were right there also.

I assume Sarca won`t supply a shackle despite the SS needing one, assuming you use the slot, because they don`t make them and can`t/won`t warrant them. FWIW I used a rated Ronstan 1/2" pin, long D, on my no.5, the pin neither too long or short for the width of the slot,and unlikely to jam. I think I carried all 22kg of the SS to the boat shop to do the selection. A "A shiny polished unrated "Asian" no brand "equivalent" would have been 1/3rd the price of the Ronstan.

 

[Conrad]

Article is from 2013 and predates the Vulcan and others. It's a good article.

I've been a subscriber to PS for years. Has been a bit sad to see them lose relevance. They rarely do this type of comparison testing of high-cost items anymore. That said, they did a decent review of anchor shackles a year or so ago that was helpful (spoiler: mostly not worth the cost and effort)

SV Panope does very good testing. And has been at it now for several years.

Peter

I agree, they seem to be losing relevance. This 7/8 year old article showed up in an email from them this morning. Until it was flagged here on TF I hadn't realized the ancient nature of it.

 

[ranger58sb]

I think that 2013 article also pre-dates the Chesapeake mud tests that Fortress did out here a few years ago. For us, mud tests are usually much more relevant... though I do appreciate more general testing, too.

Can't decide whether I think the theory about larger/heavier versions acting like their smaller brethren. For example, I know the lighter-weight Fortress anchors have an on-line reputation for sailing during deployment... but I've not seen that with the FX-23 or FX-37 that we've used.

-Chris

 

[Nomad Willy]

Yea my bad .. to a degree. It’s dated but most of the anchors featured would be very similar to what you’d find in a test now. All other comprehensive old anchor tests had few of our modern anchors represented. With the extensive hardware and people involved anchor tests are an expensive gig. So PS gave us mostly what we needed at a fraction of the cost.

Good for them and good for us. And still this is the latest (I think) anchor test out there that’s not a one man show. Or less like me fiddling w a few anchors and mostly ruining them.

But I think their featuring “throat angle” kinda made them look knowledgeable but amounted to less than that.

And “somersault” is pre-teenager talk but the results of the backflipping anchors was observed and brought into the conversation effectively to some degree. However I don’t think they really knew what was going on down there. Some pulls backward on the beach could have led to some fair-good theories. Better than what they had but no doubt still questionable.

But all things considered I’d say a B class report. The best we have.
But anchor tests like the old days are probably not to return.
Thankfully we have Steve G and PS.