Anchor design and misnomers

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I read the whole other thread and NO-ONE gave a specific answer on how it differs from a delta. We were just assured it was somehow different "trust us". Are the angles different? Does if somehow have more surface area? What are the specific differences?

The "HHP/SHHP rating" is not an explanation on how or if it physically differs, as I am quite sure you know.

If it performs so much better there MUST be specific, quantitative and explainable differences.

Your answer actually sounds like you think it is in fact a delta copy, but an improved copy. Is that correct? If so how specifically do you think it has been improved (in basic design and geometry).

From the Sarca website:

"Q. Sarca Excel looks similar to a delta style or plough anchor, why is the holding power so much greater?
A Take a second look, Sarca Excel has a single rear plain fluke that doesn’t plough, this unique design compressors the substrate and forces it over its rear, incredible pressure is applied to the convex surface area of the Excel, when this happens these forces not only multiplies the anchors holding power but drives the anchor down filling in behind it. Excel also incorporates extended and slightly concave cutting edges. You will further notice the toe of the Excel is turned down also with extended cutting edges. The turn down of the toe allows the anchor to set in most cases within the length if its fluke, it has low resistance when penetrating and will readily bed itself in a wide variety of ocean type substrates, sand, mud, reef, gravel and many more."

This might all be manufacturers hype but for the simple fact that you don't have to look very far into anchor threads to find people who were unhappy with the performance of their Deltas, while I have yet to read a single complaint about an Excel. Must be some difference, or the real world experiences would be the same, would they not?

Examples: GMAC - "We have been replacing Deltas with Excels on a range of 40 to 44fter imported yachts, they arrive with Deltas on them. All the owners have had issues with the Delta and all say the Excel just doesn't give them that grief. 90% just swapped equal weight for weight."

foggysail - "Gosh, that anchor sure looks a lot like a Delta. OK, maybe it has hidden features but! I used an 88# Delta on my 40" Silverton aftcabin this summer that I purchased new from Defender late last year. I had great expectations for my Delta only to find that it either slipped or plowed. In any case, the boat moved while being subjected to about 20K wind and strong tidal change currents."

Bash: "My boat, which displaces 15 tons, came with a 44 lb. Delta, which we used for a short while on an all-chain rode. The anchor was insufficient in mud. Traded it for a good bottle of wine, and felt I got the better part of that deal."

The specific, quantitative differences include metallurgy, weight distribution, and tip design. Apparently they have resulted in improvements that manifest themselves with an SHHP rating.

[noelex 77]

High holding power anchors (HHP) and super high holding power anchors (SHHP) are terms used by anchor manufacturers so its important to realise what they mean.

SHHP in particular sounds very impressive, but anchor corresponding to this standard only has to hold 4x the force of a standard stockless anchor. That's like the one shown in the photo. They store well in a hawse pipe, but don't work very well when scaled down to the sizes used on yachts.

Another definition is that a SHHP power anchor has to hold 6x its mass.
For say a 35lb anchor that's 210 lb. the yachting world tests showed similar sized anchors were holding over 5000lb.

These standards are expensive for manufactures to obtain, but I don't think they mean much

[Dennis.G]

Originally Posted by Delfin

This might all be manufacturers hype but for the simple fact that you don't have to look very far into anchor threads to find people who were unhappy with the performance of their Deltas, while I have yet to read a single complaint about an Excel. Must be some difference, or the real world experiences would be the same, would they not?

You will find complaints about any anchor made, assuming enough have been made and are used on boats.

I have seen hundreds of Deltas on boats but have never seen an Excel anchor (except a photo). I have never spoken to an Excel owner, so no suprise that I have heard no complaints of that anchor. That fact does little to boost confidence in the Excel however.

[Cheechako]

The Delta is both convex and concave. It is convex at the point of entry and continues back for a ways and to aid it in digging into the bottom. The flukes then become concave shaped where they are bent outward to hold in the bottom. This presents surface area to the sand. This is the only holding power an anchor has really; presenting surface area to the sand. The danforth or spade do this very well as they present that surface area (and a lot of it!) quite perpendicular to the pull. The Bruce has almost no resistant area presented. It's basically a hook.

[Cotemar]

Here is an illustration of how the seabed forces act on modern day anchor profiles.

[Factor]

Im sorry - COMPRESS, whats compressing what?

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by Factor

Im sorry - COMPRESS, whats compressing what?

Compress (squeeze) and hold the seabed at the face of the anchor fluke.

It’s the opposite of cut & separate the seabed on the face of the anchor fluke.

[MarkSF]

Every time I'm thinking of replacing my CQR, I see a thread like this, and am so thoroughly confused that I decide not to bother.

[Kettlewell]

Compress (squeeze) and hold the seabed at the face of the anchor fluke.

It’s the opposite of cut & separatethe seabed on the face of the anchor fluke.

Interesting theory that this is an important feature, but where is the evidence that it means anything? If compression is so great why do most tests show a Fortress with flat flukes or a Danforth at the top of the holding power heap? Why do at least some offshore oil rig anchors have a convex shape?

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Interesting theory that this is an important feature, but where is the evidence that it means anything? If compression is so great why do most tests show a Fortress with flat flukes or a Danforth at the top of the holding power heap? Why do at least some offshore oil rig anchors have a convex shape?

Your pictures proves the theory. No compression, but plenty of surface area for dive and hold.

I do not see a sharp upward pointed spine doing any cutting. I just see a large flat area, which would give great holding power. Just as a Fortress anchor would.

[Kettlewell]

Take a look here at at the Vryhof website and watch some of the animations too. In the side view these things look remarkably like a Delta/Excel. Yes, they don't have the center ridge, but if you took out that center flat area and joined the sides it would be quite similar to the Delta shape, though with flatter angles. I wonder if anyone has tried a yacht-sized anchor with a shape like this but with single center shank?

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

Every time I'm thinking of replacing my CQR, I see a thread like this, and am so thoroughly confused that I decide not to bother.

Mark that is a shame. The new generation anchors are a major step forward from the CQR.

Forums like this naturally debate the best of the best.

Modern convex anchors such as the Kobra and Delta are a major step forward from the CQR.
The Excel has not had the worldwide sales of the Kobra and Delta, but the evidence from users and trusted contributors like Gmac is that it is the best of the convex breed.

Going to a more modern concave design such as the roll bar anchors (Manson Supreme, Mantus, and Rocna) will produce significant extra gains. The concave non roll bar anchors such as Spade are equally good (and some would argue better) There is some hope that newer concave anchors such as the Manson Boss will also work well at reduced cost, but their is little independent evidence.

The difficulty is that the roll bar anchors do not fit many boats. Given the very high cost of the Spade outside France (and Europe in general) the market is struggling for a non roll bar anchor that performs reasonably. The Spade is tightly patented which makes copies unlikely.

Many of the posters that are "opposed" to roll bar anchors, I suspect, feel this way because they will not fit their existing bow roller. European crusers faced with this delema choose the excellent Spade, but this is an expensive option outside Europe.


Anyone of the above anchors will significantly outperform the CQR.

[downunder]

Kettewell.

Those photo do have some similarity to The Manson Boss. Possibly where the concept cane from.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Here is an illustration of how the seabed forces act on modern day anchor profiles.

Not sure I follow the compression logic.

I didn't think that sand could be compressed. That logic escapes me. Can't see it has anything to do with the issue.

For any anchor to be effective I would think it comes back to its ability to bury disturbing the least seabed and then surface area comes into play.

Why CQR types aren't so good and Fortress has great holding in straight line.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

....... European crusers faced with this delema choose the excellent Spade, but this is an expensive option outside Europe.
....

With a little boat-show negotiating skills a 70's lb Spade will probably cost you a couple hundred more than a 70's lb Rocna -- in the US. Not much difference given the expected life of an anchor.