Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

You may be onto something here.

If all the convex anchor guys just bring along a fish tank with a big octopus like the one that was under Noelex 77 anchor a while back.

The convex anchor guy's just anchor as usual then throw the big octopus on their anchor to give them the added holding power there not getting from a flat or concave anchor design.

[JonJo]

My next series of articles have nothing to do with anchors, you have been misled by a smoke screen. You need check completely different areas to avoid surprise

I confess to have given up reading the thread when we went into farming, fascinating though it surely was I gave up.

Now that its returned home it raises a couple of issues

What is the purpose of the convex underside protrusion of the Kobra, Spade, Ultra and Excel - or is it simply a mechanism to get the weight forward. In the case of the Spade the protrusion is so large that it must have another benefit - or it would simply be an obstruction.

I marvel at the bundling together of the, say, Bruce, Supreme, Boss and Spade, Ultra as being concave. Yes they are concave, but there are huge differences - the top surface of the Ultra and Spade being almost sufficiently flat to be closer to a fluke/sand anchor style. A dominant feature of the Spade is not its almost flat concave top surface but that huge protrusion underneath - the anchor works, the protrusion is pretty dominant - so what does it do?

Jonathan

[conachair]

Originally Posted by foggysail

Has anybody changed their opinion/outlook after reading one thousand, three hundered and ninety (mine included) replies???

Has anybody even read them all???

Will there be greater understanding after another one thousand additional replies?

A bit but not much.

No

Possibly but probably just more fights about who has used the oldest plough when they were a kid


One thing has come out from following this thread, it looks like the excel is a very good anchor but I wouldn't like something on the hanging off the bow which would be a constant reminder of some grumpy bloke on the Internet.
Usually the boat systems come before emotions, but positivity is also important.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

A dominant feature of the Spade is not its almost flat concave top surface but that huge protrusion underneath - the anchor works, the protrusion is pretty dominant - so what does it do?

The Spade fluke is distinctly concave.

The "protrusion" contains the ballast necessary to ensure the anchor self rights without the roll bar. The ideal anchor tip should be a thin and sharp as possible, but the Spade design requires a heavy (and therefore bulky) tip design.

It still works well and the Spade is an excellent anchor.

[motion30]

One thing I learned here is..There is no one perfect anchor, but I do believe a big new gen anchor is . better then what we had in the past

[congo]

Conachair wrote:

One thing has come out from following this thread, it looks like the excel is a very good anchor but I wouldn't like something on the hanging off the bow which would be a constant reminder of some grumpy bloke on the Internet.
Usually the boat systems come before emotions, but positivity is also important.


Conachair, I would rather be discussing anchors, Grumpy old Ba----D WELL I suppose I deserve most of what you say, at least you like my anchor that part of your comment is enlightening, look coming from a family of 13, left school at 12 then worked for food and cloths only until 18 years old, that is a long time to have to stand your ground in a pecking order, don’t get me wrong I love my family but it taught me not to take a backward step if intimidation rose it’s ugly head.

Yes I am passionate about all of what I do, also good for taking a bait, difference being when tasting and realize I’ve been had I get this driven feeling of wanting to wrap the line around the head of the one dragging it, you guys have been good therapy and I think I am coming to terms with it, please keep your comments replies to me one way, not open ended, simple terminology is best to restrict my wondering mind.

Noelex Wrote:

(I don't know why you want to tarnish his reputation.)


A comment like that is what gets my back up and bring out the worst side of me, those few little words would be lowest I have felt on any forum, for someone to think that of me, I would actually do that beggars belief.

I have an absolute passion for frienship and will chase every lead to maintain it,sadly I have failed to project it here.

Never mind get back onto anchors, apologies to all that I have given cause to think I am a grumpy ( old) Ba----d
Regards Rex.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The majority of the underside of the Blade of both the Delta and the Excel is concave.
The underside toe of the excel is very slightly convex, but it is a very subtle curve (see photo)

Both are of course are very convex on the upper surface as opposed to the Spade which is concave.

Do you really believe the shape the Excel is very different from the Delta and closer to the Spade? If so can you show a photo (from any angle) that illustrates this?

You already posted it. The Delta has a flat toe, and the Excel has a convex toe, top and bottom. The Spade and the Ultra have a convex toe, just like the Excel. This difference seems important, otherwise the Delta would perform better than it does and the Excel worse.

Just curious, but how can you post photos of these two anchors and then question what is shown? Kind of like your stating that the Rocna is a diving anchor, then posting a photo of it no doubt securely anchoring your boat under the conditions, but still providing room for sea life under the not so buried fluke....

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

mmmm . . . interesting question . . . . I think perhaps the thread has shifting my thinking more toward the Ultra than it was. . . . and a question related to that for you 'materials and shank strength guys' . . . what do you think of the ultra shank strength and its materials generally?

And I have certainly formed a distinct impression of Rex.

SS cold flows and is quite weak, but with the ovoid shape and horizontal stiffening now incorporated internally it should be quite strong. On a prior thread on the anchor that can only be praised, the Ultra manufacturer said that he had around .1% (from memory) of bent shanks on anchors he replaced under their lifetime warranty, which I recall he said were mostly due to people running into things. They started internally stiffening the shank a couple of years ago, starting first with a single plate, then recently shifting to a double plate which was easier to assemble.

But there are no empirical measurements of shank strength of the Ultra that I know of. I would like to measure that.

[congo]

Noelex Wrote:
The Spade fluke is distinctly concave.

The "protrusion" contains the ballast necessary to ensure the anchor self rights without the roll bar. The ideal anchor tip should be a thin and sharp as possible, but the Spade design requires a heavy (and therefore bulky) tip design.

It still works well and the Spade is an excellent anchor.

Rex Wrote:

The convex underside of the spade and Ultra has little to do with restricting penetrating as it is a trailing edge when the anchor projects down ward movement, the Ultra is slightly more advanced as the toe is turned down, Sarca was the first with a turned down toe, more importantly the weight is kept at its lowest point, I call convex underside a bulbas, this balbas further creates pressure under and over the fluke in tide changes giving the anchor a pivot point on the underside, without it rather that swivel around, it would be more prone to rolling out.

Ultra is a mixture of just about every anchor design introduced over the last twenty years, and yes there are inherent problems also with its design.
Mantus is yet another example of tweaking, sharp slender toe ensures penetrating in multiple sea beds, exceptionally wide holding area, extra large roll bar , height and width, very much designed from lessons learnt with the new generation roll bar concave design, tweaking has improved, this is good, many have pointed out
Mantus too has its downside, an improved design, no doubt.

I encourage Delancey he has a long road ahead, designing, calculating and making prototypes is very demanding, testing will bring out a whole new side again to tweaking what he has indeed invented, hair lose and brain ace more tweaking, more tweaking, then even more tweaking, I hear Greg from Mantus has been helping him, ask Greg about the brain ace and constant tweaking, as a doctor he may have a way to remedy the frustrations one can encounter.

If he does have a remedy it’s too late for me, the damage as many remind me here has been done.

Regards Rex

[Delancey]

My bad. I know I said I wouldn't stray anymore but I want to add that the experience so far has given me a great appreciation of those before me. I see a lot of people on these threads who talk the talk, but few who walk the walk.

As designer, in my daily life I find few projects that compare in terms of complexity as the many challenges presented by anchor design. The process so far has been tremendously rewarding and lots of fun to boot.

So, tip of the hat to those before me. I would have a much harder task without you!

[congo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin
The Delta has a flat bottom, and performs less well than the Spade or Ultra, which suggests the convex bottom is desirable.
Your Excel has a convex upper and convex lower and also performs great.

Noelex Wrote:

This is the underside of the Delta and the Excel. There is very little shape difference.

The Spade and the Ultra are very different to the Excel. The important upper side (which is the leading edge in contact with the substrate) is very different (concave verses very convex for the Excel ). Even the underside has no resemblance.

The Excel is nothing like the Spade shape wise, in fact in most ways it is the the exact opposite
Attached Thumbnails

Rex Wrote:

I dont know why but the Excel has disapeared.

There are many differences between the two, FURTHER THE BALBAS on the latest Excel has become slightly more pregnaant, (tweaking).


Delancey, there is no doubt our forfathers also made it easer for me, exciting it certainly is, in your attemtd much more exciting than my experince as you are not taking out a patent?I will never forget that line as thats what my patent attorney said to me when I first presented my proto type,with a smile on his face after quoting me he said this is so exciting, so gullible was I, no wonder he was smiling, I could have retired on what I have paid to him over the years.

Regards Rex.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Delfin

But there are no empirical measurements of shank strength of the Ultra that I know of. I would like to measure that.

Want to bend yours in the interest of advancing mankind's knowledge?

Don't I remember you bought a rocna just to cut it apart to see if they were lieing about the shank material.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Want to bend yours in the interest of advancing mankind's knowledge?

Don't I remember you bought a rocna just to cut it apart to see if they were lieing about the shank material.

Well, I knew they were lying, but I thought it might be helpful to prove it.

Actually, I would like to conduct a series of tests on anchors in the 15 kg size that measure the following:

1. If inverted, what is the distance required for the anchor to right itself and begin to dig in.
2. In a comparative tidal pull test, what is the depth an anchor buries itself over a given distance.
3. What is the maximum holding capacity of the anchors, and at what depth do they achieve this maximum value.
4. What degree of deflection is attained when an increasing force is applied 90 degrees to the shank, and at what force is a minimum of 1/2" of permanent deflection induced.

The anchors I would like to test include the anchor that can only be praised, plus an Excel, a Tern, a Spade, a Fortress, an Ultra, a Rocna, a Boss and a Manson Supreme - in other words, the prominent 3rd gen anchors, plus the Fortress. I'm intrigued by the Knox and would like to get one of those as well. Perhaps if I win the lottery, I'll be able to do this. One interesting measurement would be identifying the manufacturers who wanted to participate by contributing an anchor vs. those who, understanding the protocol, would just as soon not, making me buy one.

[estarzinger]

^^

Do remember that rocna contributed anchors to lots of tests . . . And sent "special test ones" and not production ones. We don't know which other MFG's also did this.

I think an objective test should only be done with ones bought blind off the shelf.

[congo]

Delfin Wrote:
Your Excel has a convex upper and convex lower and also performs great. Since it appears that since both convex and concave designs seem to be able to dive, the dominant shape may be less important than the sheer ability to bury itself.

Would you agree with this analysis, or am I missing something important?

Sorry Delfin


The grumpy bum thing threw me; Design is everything, concave convex, both designs will bury very well if designed correct ally, no different when comparing CQR to so many other plough designs, if you were to load cell test concave and convex, I am talking the ones proven to dive, the convex will deliver higher holding power at a lesser depth, I think this is where Ultra fell short in shank strength with the earlier models, if you weren’t gentle breaking them out when buried so deep the shank suffered, another noticeable difference is the convex is considerably easier to break out on retrieval when buried deep.


Here in Australia we have terrain that if you deployed a fortress in a storm it has been said they burry so well the odd ones had to be cut of as it could not be retrieved, yet this may only be a story as I have no direct knowledge of this.

It has been said that is similar to the Ultra, very difficult to retrieve from very deep penetration soft to firm mud, again these are stories that circulate through boat shows, I again have no firsthand knowledge of this.


So really it comes down to choice, what is different apart from a number of features on the Excel it has a single plain fluke, very novel part of our patent, this distributes the compression to the rear of the anchor and encourages it to dive without plowing.


The Excel is a very complex design; there are some trade secrets that that I am not prepared to reveal for obvious reasons, so basically sucking and seeing is the way to go, if the Excel is not what we say it is then the purchases would be refunded, best way to sought the crap.


Regards Rex.