Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[congo]

Jonathan Wrote:

The machine is simply a modification of a technique used by John Knox, a technique endorsed by The Smiths.

I suspect the technique is used by other anchor makers (Manson said they had something similar).

Rex wrote:

Not quite Jonathan, the knox rig was a fixed a frame with a roller this rig was anchored on the beach, the anchors being pulled was over a roller, as the rig was fixed the anchor Rhode was reducing as the anchors were dragged toward it, nothing wrong with that providing all anchors were pulled the same distance.


The N.M.S.C. would not allow this method as the Rhode continuously shortened, the T.A.T.S got through because it has wheels that allow you to push the rig out into approx. one meter of water, the wheels are then retracted and it sits on skids, anchor Rhode to the anchors deployed were at no less than 7 to eight to one.

As the T.A .T.S. is being winched the anchors coupled to the load sell does not shorten, resulting in the Rhode length staying at the same length over the entire distance the anchors were dragged.

This was a requirement of the N.M.S.C. so as every anchor design being tested could achieve its deepest setting.

Regards Rex.

[noelex 77]

Jonathan I think this discussion should be about anchors, not personalities.
I am puzzled why you ask the question.

Originally Posted by JonJo

I have requested on this Forum in the past for members views on anchor testing - and no-one has responded which suggests
people think CS testing is as good as we are going to get

But then comment:

Originally Posted by JonJo

You think you know better than 12 just men?

When someone answers the question you posed. If you did not want feedback from members about possible improvements to testing procedures why did you ask the question

Originally Posted by JonJo

The SARCA anchor was introduced in the early 1990's, only about 15 years before the TATs machine. The first protoype Excel was introduced in around 2006 at the same time as TATs was introduced. Yet you say Anchor Right product were developed using the TATs machine

Quote from Anchor Right's website indicating the Surer Sarca was developed using TATS.
"The Super SARCA's whopping 30% increase in holding power leaves the new generation hoop design anchors in its wake, this new found performance is largely due to the incredible TATS Rig."

[B-Baysailer]

I bought a #5 excell anchor early this summer and it has been great .It sets and holds as good as my manson supreme but fits much better on my bow roller. The biggist test was this fall I sailed out to martha's vineyard [vineyard haven] by my self I got there around 11 pm set the anchor and went to bed the next morrning I got a call from home and had to leave right away so I took the ferry back to newbedford . when i anchored the wind was from the south west around 20 kt or so well protected from that direction. I did not get back for 4 days . while I was gone the wind shifted to the north east witch the harbor is wide open from that direction and came in at 35-40 kts I was very happy to see my boat had not moved at all [I checked with my gps was the wind was now south west again] My boat is 39' and is about 24-25 k pounds

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Jonathan I think this discussion should be about anchors, not personalities.
I am puzzled why you ask the question.

But then comment:

When someone answers the question you posed. If you did not want feedback from members about possible improvements to testing procedures why did you ask the question



Quote from Anchor Right's website indicating the Surer Sarca was developed using TATS.
"The Super SARCA's whopping 30% increase in holding power leaves the new generation hoop design anchors in its wake, this new found performance is largely due to the incredible TATS Rig."

The Super Sarca is not the Sarca. If you are going to quote something, perhaps best to do it in context to avoid the appearance of bias. The full quote:

"The Super SARCA's whopping 30% increase in holding power leaves the new generation hoop design anchors in its wake, this new found performance is largely due to the incredible TATS Rig. SARCA Excels performance again is largely due to TATS allowing us to test in a variety of ocean type floor terrains in real deployment situations, No laboratory testing in man made sand pits, no guess work, just reproducible and quantifiable results so as we can for the first time deliver an anchor to you the customer that actually performs as we say."

The balance beam approach applies identical conditions to an A/B test of two different anchors and is the fairest and most objective method I have seen - certainly far more so than dragging anchors around the bay.

I would encourage anyone interested in this thread to go to Anchor Right's website and view the testing methodology yourself rather than settled for a filtered point of view.

[JonJo]

Noelex,

It was you that brought up the TATs machine, how it was developed and how, you say, it is influencing anchor design and that it is limiting design development.

The whole basis of the TATs machine is that it is simple and cheap. Anyone can make something similar, as long as it keeps the rode scope constant. A similar device can be built in America or Europe, used by an anchor maker there, have the testing professionally supervised and if the anchor passes muster that anchor could (after standard Proof Testing) be certified and used in Australia on vessels in charter. I recall the test needs to be conducted on at least 2 different seabeds. So Rocna and Mantus your favoured (and only) anchors could be tested this way and which would open a, sadly,small market for them - what is not to like - what is your grouse?

Quite why this is wrong and quite why you say this is wrong - beats me.

Both Vryhof and John Knox demonstrated that varying the speed of the pull load during anchor testing impacts holding capacity. Loading slowly results in lower holding capacity. I wonder how easy it is to have an increase load speed when testing by tug for some anchors and not others, I wonder how you control the speed of a tug at all. Winches can be of fixed speed.

So the TATs machine (or something similar) offers fixed speed and fixed scope - precisely. Its cheap. It can be used anywhere in the world, it can be used on any beach type. And you say this is wrong and it was wrong for Anchor Right to be involved with 9 or 10 other professionals in its development and adoption.

As usual you are attacking Anchor Right, and you introduced the topic, without any foundation whatsover and have been totally unable to defend your vindictive approach. You have similarly unfairly attacked some other anchor makers - but remained disgracefully silent when an appallingly designed anchor was discussed.

Jonathan

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Noelex,

It was you that brought up the TATs machine, how it was developed and how, you say, it is influencing anchor design and that it is limiting design development.

The whole basis of the TATs machine is that it is simple and cheap. Anyone can make something similar, as long as it keeps the rode scope constant. A similar device can be built in America or Europe, used by an anchor maker there, have the testing professionally supervised and if the anchor passes muster that anchor could (after standard Proof Testing) be certified and used in Australia on vessels in charter. I recall the test needs to be conducted on at least 2 different seabeds. So Rocna and Mantus your favoured (and only) anchors could be tested this way and which would open a, sadly,small market for them - what is not to like - what is your grouse?

Quite why this is wrong and quite why you say this is wrong - beats me.

Both Vryhof and John Knox demonstrated that varying the speed of the pull load during anchor testing impacts holding capacity. Loading slowly results in lower holding capacity. I wonder how easy it is to have an increase load speed when testing by tug for some anchors and not others, I wonder how you control the speed of a tug at all. Winches can be of fixed speed.

So the TATs machine (or something similar) offers fixed speed and fixed scope - precisely. Its cheap. It can be used anywhere in the world, it can be used on any beach type. And you say this is wrong and it was wrong for Anchor Right to be involved with 9 or 10 other professionals in its development and adoption.

As usual you are attacking Anchor Right, and you introduced the topic, without any foundation whatsover and have been totally unable to defend your vindictive approach. You have similarly unfairly attacked some other anchor makers - but remained disgracefully silent when an appallingly designed anchor was discussed.

Jonathan

The reason I like the balance beam test is that it is objective - both anchors are subjected to exactly the same conditions, which is impossible in a submerged test. The only criticism I could make is that if one anchor outpulls another by an ounce, it will look as superior as if it outpulled it by 1,000#. However, when you look at the one test on the AR website where a smaller Excel outpulls both a Rocna and a Manson at the same time, then unless you are completely biased you have to conclude that in those bottom conditions, the Excel is so clearly superior to the other designs that pretending otherwise has to be attributed to willful ignorance. Just one opinion, but I've never heard an empirical refutation to this observation.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The Super Sarca is not the Sarca.

"Surer Sarca" should of course been Super Sarca. Sorry for the typo.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Quite why this is wrong and quite why you say this is wrong - beats me.

I do not believe it is appropriate for an independent standard to be tested using equipment that has been designed and produced by the manufacturer of the anchor that is applying for certification.
You asked for ways the standard could be improved and I believe maintaining a greater independence of testing and measuring equipment is one of them.

I understand you don't see a problem, or conflict of interest, in this situation, which is fine. It is not the major problem with the standard and I think we should agree to disagree on this subject.

[Shas Cho]

Rex,

I'll respond as a member of the faction
which "don’t think certification is worth salt"
since you were kind enough to specify us

After viewing the Anchor Right Australia videos
I am quite impressed by the performance of the Super Sarca.
My main anchor is a Spade and I am very pleased with it.
The evidence suggests that the Rocna performs equally well.
I would like to have seen either of those anchors
being compared to the Super Sarca,
and was disappointed by their omission
or suppression or whatever it was.
If you did test them against the Super Sarca
I'm sure you videoed the comparison
and I would appreciate the opportunity to see that test.
That is information I would ponder carefully
in the purchase of the anchor for my new boat.
The lack of such video raises questions in my mind.

I am disappointed at the partisan nature
of some of the comments
in what should be a mutually informative discussion.
Disappointed but not surprised,
as the topic of anchors
evidently forms part of the political conviction
(or perhaps the religious dogma)
of a great many mariners.
I have no investment in any sort of anchors,
desiring only thorough, transparent testing and full disclosure
so that consumers might make informed decisions.

I do feel that a couple of your statements deserve consideration;

[QUOTE]
Rex wrote:
... the Tsunami that hit Phuket , three boats survived on Sarca’s whilst many were washed out to see, many smashed on the rocks, non with the Sarca s moved

Do you actually know that?
You know the type of anchor in use
by every boat that was washed out to sea
or smashed on the rocks,
and that not one was using a Sarca?
That stretches credibility a bit.

Would have a non-certified anchor achieved this..

Whether it would have done or not,
the fact of it being uncertified would have had
exactly zero effect on its performance.
Bureaucratic forms in triplicate
and decals with hyphenated designations
provide neither friction nor penetration.

... well-designed and strong anchors achieved by qualifying for certification.

Oh, come now.
I cannot believe your anchor was developed
by "qualifying for certification".
Surely the qualification was achieved by the design development.
No matter how enthusiastically you champion certification
it's important to keep the cart behind the horse.

This final question may reveal great ignorance on my part,
but I fail to see the stupendous value of the TATs machine.
In what way does it functionally differ
from a common rubber-tired backhoe equipped with a winch?

Shas

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

This final question may reveal great ignorance on my part,
but I fail to see the stupendous value of the TATs machine.
In what way does it functionally differ
from a common rubber-tired backhoe equipped with a winch?

I do of course appreciate the unchanging rode length,
so we attach it to the boom of the backhoe
and draw it towards the tractor at a steady rate.
Or put the 4-wheel-drive backhoe in low gear and drive away.

Why the specially-designed testing tractor?

I really like the balance beam test.
Delfin- it's true that past a given differential of drag
this test no longer shows the amount of disparity,
but up to that point the difference is graphically displayed.
Watch the video again;
you'll see a slight angle develop,
then increase incrementally
until the limits of the test are surpassed.

(I grew up watching the tell-tale angle of the whippletree
between two horses pulling a plow.
It's easy to see just how much one horse attempts
to leave the pulling to his harness mate )

I'm eager to see how the Spade and/or Rocna fare
against the Super Sarca on the balance beam!

Shas

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

This final question may reveal great ignorance on my part,
but I fail to see the stupendous value of the TATs machine.
In what way does it functionally differ
from a common rubber-tired backhoe equipped with a winch?

Shas

The value is in A/B testing when you are trying to develop an anchor. Modify prototype A to produce prototype B, tow behind a balance beam in identical sea bed conditions. If B outperforms A, adopt the modification. Continue until you have the best anchor you can make.

Or, with exactly the same speed and exactly the same sea bed, tow two anchors off the beam and observe which pulls harder. Like this, with the Excel outpulling both a Rocna and a Supreme:

SARCA Excel to The Test - YouTube

Or, like this with the Super Sarca outpulling a Rocna and a Supreme:

Super SARCA to The Test - YouTube

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

I'm eager to see how the Spade and/or Rocna fare
against the Super Sarca on the balance beam!

Shas

See the second video above.

[congo]

Shas Cho wrote
After viewing the Anchor Right Australia videos
I am quite impressed by the performance of the Super Sarca.
My main anchor is a Spade and I am very pleased with it.
The evidence suggests that the Rocna performs equally well.
I would like to have seen either of those anchors
being compared to the Super Sarca,
and was disappointed by their omission
or suppression or whatever it was.
Rex wrote;
Well on our site there is a video showing Rocna and Manson Supreme, titled Sarca to the test.
Yes we have done quite a bit of testing with spade and have found it to be far superior to Rocna and Manson, out does the Sarca but not the Excel, why no vide on these tests, well at that time spade was not involved in a campaign to discredit Anchor Right Australia.
Can you see those tests, Alan Polroid has passed away, his passion was not dissimilar to mine, in respect certainly not.
Shas Cho wrote:
QUOTE]
Rex wrote:
... the Tsunami that hit Phuket , three boats survived on Sarca’s whilst many were washed out to see, many smashed on the rocks, non with the Sarca s moved

Do you actually know that?
You know the type of anchor in use
by every boat that was washed out to sea
or smashed on the rocks,
and that not one was using a Sarca?
That stretches credibility a bit.


Rex Wrote:
Well I suppose you could be right but it would be highly unlikely as back in those days we were selling very few LARGE Sarca anchors in Auastralia, I too was very surprised and pleased to think they were being used when the Tsunami hit.
Shas wrote:

Quote:
... well-designed and strong anchors achieved by qualifying for certification.

Oh, come now.
I cannot believe your anchor was developed
by "qualifying for certification".
Surely the qualification was achieved by the design development.
No matter how enthusiastically you champion certification
it's important to keep the cart behind the horse.


Rex wrote:

Well Shas, Sounds like you answer all of your own questions, the original Sarca anchors were quite small and aimed at the trailer boat industry, we were told by charter operators to have them tested certified otherwise they could not use them, so my friend that is what we did, started with the No 2 size, our range at this stage was up to 15 K.G. and did not pass the H/H/power test, by the time of the Tsunami we were making anchors up to 30 K.G. and above, and yes, they were being built to , each model tested certified as we grew them.

Shas wrote:

This final question may reveal great ignorance on my part,
but I fail to see the stupendous value of the TATs machine.
In what way does it functionally differ
from a common rubber-tired backhoe equipped with a winch?

Rex wrote:

Quite amazing that that you could not have worked this one out for yourself, try driving a back hoe into a meter of water on a sandy or muddy beach, you would need a back hoe to retrieve the back hoe.

Secondly the N.M.S.C. as in whatever way we derived at testing all anchors had to be pulled the same speed, try doing that with a sinking back that sinks even further when load is applied.

I think you have squeezed enough juice out of what you think is a lemon, give it a break get get back to BIB.


Regards Rex.

[Shas Cho]

Originally Posted by Delfin

See the second video above.

Thanks, Delfin.
That's what I was looking for.
I hunted for it on the ARA site
but must have been looking in the wrong places.

That's a pretty impressive demonstration.
It's interesting that both anchors set immediately
and that the boom remains quite balanced
until they have dragged for some distance.
This is not easy to see,
as in the first test the boom is hidden by a close-up of the trench
until they have dragged a considerable way
and in the second, not shown at all
until it begins to tip toward the Super Sarca.
For the first few metres the bar remains level.

Since the Rocna is claimed by users and testers
to be resistant to dragging, though,
the real question is not how hard it drags
but how well it resists breaking out in the first place.
On that basis the anchors appear to be identical.
Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, right?

Interesting stuff.


Shas

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

Thanks, Delfin.
That's what I was looking for.
I hunted for it on the ARA site
but must have been looking in the wrong places.

That's a pretty impressive demonstration.
It's interesting that both anchors set immediately
and that the boom remains quite balanced
until they have dragged for some distance.
This is not easy to see,
as in the first test the boom is hidden by a close-up of the trench
until they have dragged a considerable way
and in the second, not shown at all
until it begins to tip toward the Super Sarca.
For the first few metres the bar remains level.

Since the Rocna is claimed by users and testers
to be resistant to dragging, though,
the real question is not how hard it drags
but how well it resists breaking out in the first place.
On that basis the anchors appear to be identical.
Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, right?

Interesting stuff.


Shas

A pet theory of mine is that hoop style anchors depend on balling up the sea bed in front of the hoop for some, or a great part of their holding capacity. The Super Sarca has a thin hoop that in combination with convex fluke presents less of an obstacle to digging in, and in the video this seems evident. However, ultimate holding strength, at least in my mind, is a function of the depth an anchor can dive. That also seems to be verified by the other AR video of the bake off between one diving Excel and two hoop anchors - a Rocna and a Manson.
The Excel can dive, the hoop anchors not so much. Bottom line, the testing apparatus developed by AR seems to be a way to provide good side by side testing of different anchors in as unbiased way as I have seen. I really can't take the criticisms of this methodology seriously, seeming to be more agenda than empirically driven.