Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[congo]

Shas Wrote:

But I was raised on the farm,
and I knew darned well that plows are designed,
not to HOLD in soil,
but to slice through the soil
with the least possible resistance!
Duh

Rex Wrote:


Its plough, not (plow)
big difference, Excel is not a plough, I was also raised on a farm, Shas didn’t you see the adjustable wheel on the front of the plough, this is called the depth wheel, no horse or tractor will pull a plough when you lift it up as the plough sheer will continue to bury, lock up with depth volume until the shank bends.

I really like this filtering, certainly makes the point.
Regards Rex.

[congo]

Shas Wrote:

I'm delighted to hear that the Spade outperformed the Super Sarca.
My confidence in it is higher than ever!
But are you saying that you broadcast head-to-head comparisons with anchors
only if their makers are hostile to you?
Really?

Rex Wrote:

Gee Shas I am finally catching up with your barrage of questions, Anchor makers hostile toward me ?
There was only one, no problem with Manson, the only reason they were in the test is because of their Lloyds certification, they were specified for us to test against as a bench mark by the N.M.S.C.

The other similar anchor Manufacture had made some damaging claims toward Anchor Right, what better opportunity to respond, the Delta , well that was just to show how far we had come with anchor technology, we didn’t can it , we made reference that in softer ocean floor terrains it performed quite differently.

Just love filtering.
Regards Rex.

[congo]

Re: Anchors, Bigger is Better?

Quote: from Rex
Yes Shas, its a real pity I couldn't hide the fudged videos


Shas Wrote:

I'm sure you'll get there with practice.

Rex Wrote:

Then why all the fuss over the videos, you actually must have believed them.

Sorry Shas I have run out of time, cannot respond to any more questions for now.


Regards Rex.

[congo]

Re: Anchors, Bigger is Better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by congo
in most situations you will find all testing is witnessed by, not carried out by the various classification Authorities themselves, you may find Manson sublet and were involved themselves on the tug boats for Lloyds approval, you hire the tug, you supply the labour and you pay for the witnessing officer regardless of classification Authorities, I have been told, needs checking that Rocna hired the tug for Rhina certification.


Noelex Wrote:

Precisely my point. Manufacturers should not be allowed to select and hire the tug and captain involved in testing.

Good standards involve the manufacturer submitting their product (or ideally it is purchased at random) to the testing authorities who carry out the test independently. The manufacturer is not involved.

This is done with other standards and it would be an improvement if this model was adopted for anchor testing.

Rex Wrote:

Then I suppose we will just have to take it there are no truly certified anchors on the market, for that matter has there ever been, what a disgusting charade by the classification societies, it’s a wonder they cover insurance when an anchor related incidence occurs.

Incidentally, all of our anchors were randomly selected and kept under lock and key for the duration of testing.

Further to suggest an anchor manufacturer captains the tug boat is pretty obsurd.

You learn something every day.

Regards Rex.

[JonJo]

Noelex,

Anchor Right are working, legitimately and honestly with current rules. They were invited to participate in a development of Australia's development of anchor testing protocols. Please do not criticise them for participating nor for offering their advice. You are, at best, naive to think they would refuse to join such an august body.

If you think the protocols that were developed are wrong and disadvantage the safety of the public, and/or if you think Anchor Right have manipulated the results to their advantage you are free to demonstrate that your fears are real, have firm foundation and/or can be quantified and you are free to advertise your fears here (and so far they are simply fears without any substance) or to explore those fear with AMSA.

Possibly it is beyond you to think people actually have a pride in what they are doing and conduct themselves and their business with integrity. I do confess that given the history of anchor makers you might be overly suspicious - and maybe you think all anchor makers are tarred with that same 'misleading' brush (I have been told to be nice, truth is apparently to be wrapped up in cotton wool)

So far you have implied Anchor Rights activities in Australia's test protocols are to their advantage - which are serious allegations - but you have been unable to substantiate your comments.

We can agree to disagree in what is realistic and practical but I find it distasteful you can imply bias and wrongdoing without proof.

Jonathan

[ternmarine]

Rex's test machine is an excellent unit.

[Jimbo485]

Rex's parents named him appropriately!

I hope his middle names are something along the lines of "immovable object."

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Shas Cho

I quite agree,
and I have certainly not criticised the method.
I just don't see what I'm told I'm supposed to see.
I see two anchors setting identically,
resisting breakout identically,
and dragging identically for about two metres.
Then the Super Sarca suddenly begins to out-drag the Rocna.
So the SSarca wins the drag race
while the two anchors are equally effective
at setting and staying put.

John Knox has a good discussion on the importance of Ultimate Holding Capacity vs. Static Holding Force. You're observing a comparison of UHC in Anchor Right's beam testing method.

Performance & testing - Knox Anchors - The top performing New Generation Anchor for safe and secure anchoring

Maybe we're seeing something different, but when I look at those videos, I see concave hoop anchors digging in quickly, then sea bed piling up in front of the hoop, preventing them from diving. I see the convex Excel and thin hoop SS also dig in but dive deeper and demonstrate higher ultimate holding force.

By the way, the next time there is a Mantus thread, we should get you to ask some questions.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Noelex,

Anchor Right are working, legitimately and honestly with current rules. They were invited to participate in a development of Australia's development of anchor testing protocols. Please do not criticise them for participating nor for offering their advice. You are, at best, naive to think they would refuse to join such an august body.

If you think the protocols that were developed are wrong and disadvantage the safety of the public, and/or if you think Anchor Right have manipulated the results to their advantage you are free to demonstrate that your fears are real, have firm foundation and/or can be quantified and you are free to advertise your fears here (and so far they are simply fears without any substance) or to explore those fear with AMSA.

Possibly it is beyond you to think people actually have a pride in what they are doing and conduct themselves and their business with integrity. I do confess that given the history of anchor makers you might be overly suspicious - and maybe you think all anchor makers are tarred with that same 'misleading' brush (I have been told to be nice, truth is apparently to be wrapped up in cotton wool)

So far you have implied Anchor Rights activities in Australia's test protocols are to their advantage - which are serious allegations - but you have been unable to substantiate your comments.

We can agree to disagree in what is realistic and practical but I find it distasteful you can imply bias and wrongdoing without proof.

Jonathan

There is sufficient empirical proof that the Anchor Right product is a very good product, and sufficient expression of satisfaction from customers to indicate that customers agree. If you want to campaign against one manufacturer, then I guess one option is to infer dishonesty of the manufacturer.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

So far you have implied Anchor Rights activities in Australia's test protocols are to their advantage - which are serious allegations - but you have been unable to substantiate your comments.

I think concerns about the low standard for the holding test and the adoption of a vertical (instead of horizontal ) proof load test are more worrying problems than the test protocol. However Rex's comments do give me some further concerns

Originally Posted by congo

No classification authority requires them to proof and field test, in most situations you will find all testing is witnessed by, not carried out by the various classification Authorities themselves

Witnessing a test that anchor manufacturer is conducting does not sound independent to me.

Obviously the anchor manufacturer has control over at least some of the parameters. The size of tug, speed of pull etc
If the manufactures have control of these parameters why would they not select these test protocols to for their advantage?. It seems a tad naive to think they would do otherwise. This of course applies to all manufacturers and diminishes the already low regard I have for the relevance of the current certification process (for our sized anchors).

At the end of day they still have to meet the (low) requirement for holding power, but it sounds like they are given considerable leeway.
I hope they are not permitted some choice with parameters such as to where the test takes place, and therefore can pick an appropriate substate where their anchor tests well.

Perhaps Rex would like to elaborate on how the testing locations are chosen?

[motion30]

Looks to me all three anchors set quickly and all three continue to drag in that paticular test . What we don't know is...in real life saturations. Do the roll bar anchors orient them selfs better to be in positions to take a set.

[motion30]

Rex
You are quick to criticize mantus ,but at least he has video of his anchors actually setting in the water. Seems to me a more real life situation. I do not recall ever needing to have my anchor set on the beach. By the way, all the manufacture who have participated in these sites soon find it to be a losing deal. I am sure you make a great anchor as you have staunch Supporters

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by motion30

Looks to me all three anchors set quickly and all three continue to drag in that paticular test . What we don't know is...in real life saturations. Do the roll bar anchors orient them selfs better to be in positions to take a set.

Are you referring to the test where one 9kg Excel provides higher drag than 2 heavier hoop style anchors? If so, would you rate all three of them equally?

And I'm curious, what effect would water over a sea bed have in terms of changing holding performance that is demonstrated at the tide line? Are you suggesting it would increase the holding power of one design but not another in the same way?

p.s. I agree with you that manufacturers, with one exception, waste their time attempting to defend their products on fourms. Better just to explain their approach and ignore the slime.

[Cotemar]

The problem with the convex anchor designs is that they have a “Problem Bend” which pulls a blade through the seabed cutting it into two and pushing it to the sides.

Just like this log splitter with the convex blade cutting through this log and pushing the separated pieces of log to the sides.

[motion30]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Are you referring to the test where one 9kg Excel provides higher drag than 2 heavier hoop style anchors? If so, would you rate all three of them equally?

And I'm curious, what effect would water over a sea bed have in terms of changing holding performance that is demonstrated at the tide line? Are you suggesting it would increase the holding power of one design but not another in the same way?

p.s. I agree with you that manufacturers, with one exception, waste their time attempting to defend their products on fourms. Better just to explain their approach and ignore the slime.

What my question is. What effect scope has on each anchor? My other point is none of the anchors in the test were "Holding" ,all three were dragging . If all one can hope for is for an anchor to slow ones progress and not stop it, you are in trouble Do you disagree?