Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, Rocna did do that, which was just another dimension of a pathological inability to be straightforward. I agree with you that off the shelf purchases would have the highest integrity, but I would still ask to see who offered.

[hpeer]

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.

Evans,

I know you were concerned with the regalvanizing of the Spade. At Annapolis I saw they had a zinc epoxy kit, kindda pricey. I spoke with them about recoating with my Ameron 302 two part epoxy I use on the boat. They were fine with that.

If that works for you, and I don't see why it should not, then you can paint it with the zinc epoxy, carry a gallon with you, and touch up when you find the need. I buy the stuff for about $60/gallon.

Might get your around the regalvanizing issue.

Just a thought.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by 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.

I have found that my Ultra resists breaking out unless you are right above it. Then my 4,000 pound windlass in combination with a bit of pitch breaks it free easily enough. I don't know whether to worry about the shank strength or not. I think not, but as I said, I have no objective data to support that.

It is actually your statement that a convex design will out hold a concave design that needs additional testing and attestation. I happen to think it's true, based on thought experiments, and I know you are doing the testing to prove this out. I prefer to look to what I think is your high integrity way of establishing performance than to your skill (or clear lack thereof )in winning friends with posts on a forum like this, so I accept that the Excel is a great, and perhaps the best anchor available based on the test data I can see. That said, the Fortress is awesome and the more I use it, the more I like my shiny Ultra. At some point, gaining the last 2% of performance in any design is expensive and ultimately may be pointless, since 98% of optimum is likely unnoticeable in the real world from 100% of optimum.

[congo]

Delfin Wrote:

I have found that my Ultra resists breaking out unless you are right above it. Then my 4,000 pound windlass in combination with a bit of pitch breaks it free easily enough. I don't know whether to worry about the shank strength or not. I think not, but as I said, I have no objective data to support that.

It is actually your statement that a convex design will out hold a concave design that needs additional testing and attestation. I happen to think it's true, based on thought experiments, and I know you are doing the testing to prove this out. I prefer to look to what I think is your high integrity way of establishing performance than to your skill (or clear lack thereof )in winning friends with posts on a forum like this, so I accept that the Excel is a great, and perhaps the best anchor available based on the test data I can see. That said, the Fortress is awesome and the more I use it, the more I like my shiny Ultra. At some point, gaining the last 2% of performance in any design is expensive and ultimately may be pointless, since 98% of optimum is likely unnoticeable in the real world from 100% of optimum.


Delfin I don’t believe from our testing there is much difference at all in holding power, I don’t think I said the Excel was greater but what I found it produces the same holding power as the Ultra with less depth, Fortes has stood the test of time and for weight ratio the holding power figures will be difficult for future designs to top.

Retrieval was in relation to storm conditions, I am not knocking your anchors simply relaying what we have found, maybe what I have heard I should have deleted.

Ultra ,Spade I have a great deal of respect for, they are both great anchors.

Do we have the best anchor in the word? Only the end user is going to tell me and as we know we cannot please them all.

Regards Rex.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by congo

Delfin I don’t believe from our testing there is much difference at all in holding power, I don’t think I said the Excel was greater but what I found it produces the same holding power as the Ultra with less depth

From your website

"SARCA Excel is doubling the holding power of the best anchors the world has to offer, this includes all new generation designs."

[congo]

DELFIN.

I think you may miss read my earlier post, I wasn’t saying you may bend your Ultra shank, what I said was the early models in ultra did suffer a few bent shanks, I think it was from burying them self’s so deep, as you know they have gone from a hollow shank to a much more robust cross section through the hollow possibly doubling its original strength, this is a very expensive procedure, they would not have done it if not needed, I have no doubt they have got it right otherwise they wouldn’t support you with the warranty they offer.

Interesting two because they sought certification, the proof testing may have revealed a weakness; with the stronger shank they do indeed now have ABS. Hail certification.

Regards Rex.

[congo]

Noelex Wrote:

From your website

"SARCA Excel is doubling the holding power of the best anchors the world has to offer, this includes all new generation designs."

Must have been a miss quote, thanks Noelex I will have it rectified,
it should read," this includes all new generation designs it was tested against."

The rep from Ultra was going to be there including theire Ultras, they with drew as they did not want share in any costs.

Good to see you roaming our web site Noelex, but, you would do better concentrating on BIB instead of Anchor Right.

Regards Rex.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

From your website

"SARCA Excel is doubling the holding power of the best anchors the world has to offer, this includes all new generation designs."

Anything to catch you out Rex, I guess since exposure of some of the issues with roll bar anchors by others. Not that they are bad anchors as I would not have hesitated to purchase a Manson Supreme in the past.

Agreed, its good to see Noelex familiarising/researching some of the other new generation anchor options.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Just curious, but how can you post photos of these two anchors and then question what is shown?

You seem to believe that some of these anchors have a similar shape to underside, but it's the Excel and Spade (The first, third and fourth photos )

[downunder]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

You seem to believe that some of these anchors have a similar shape to underside, but it's the Excel and Spade (The first and third photos)

Delfin,

The convex undersides on the Excel, Spade and Ultra is demonstrated in these photos. All much more complex than the CQR or Delta.

Cheers

[noelex 77]

Here are couple of photos to show the underside of tip of the Delta is convex.
It is not very curved the centre is about 1cm deeper than the outside (for a 20kg anchor).
It is less convex than the Excel and much less than the Spade or Ultra. I believe the Spade and Ultra have a completely different shape from the Excel and Delta to the underside (and topside) of their fluke.

[JonJo]

One facet to come out of this thread is that if anyone knows how the different designs work - they are keeping very quiet.

We have a unique concave anchor, Rocna, with an upturn to the back of the fluke and a roll bar. It was mentioned the upturn was to allow the seabed that was passing through the fluke to be compressed between upturn and roll bar. As far as I am aware none of the other concave anchors have this upturn and roll bar. We have the Supreme with a tight concave fluke, no upturn, and roll bar and the Mantus with a very shallow concave fluke and extremely wide roll bar. It has been suggested that the 'wideness' of the fluke and roll bar of the Mantus is to ensure there is no compression. In each of these anchors the roll bar is a self righting device, though it also serves to compress in the Rocna.

One thing the Rocna, Mantus and Supreme have in common (to a greater or lesser extent) is a 'weighted' toe - that thickened plate.

So 3 anchors all crudely classified as concave, but all apparently working differently. In fact the design characteristics of the Rocna have been completely designed out of the Mantus?

Then we have 2 more concave anchors, Bruce and Boss, no roll bar, no (apparent) compression.

And finally another 2 anchors, Spade and Ultra, with very shallow concave flukes, upturn at the rear but prominent wedged soles and weighted toes.

We have an equal diversity in convex anchors with the SARCA (or if we are to be pedantic Super SARCA) shallow convex, no weighted toe and roll bar.

Finally the Kobra and Excel, convex but with convex sole, with weighted toes.

To provide balance we also have the Fortress a superbly engineered fluke anchor that in the right seabed possibly has the highest holding capacity of any of the above anchors in terms of hold per unit anchor weight.

All of these anchors perform over most seabeds, some are possibly better than others in specific environments but if you had 2 contrasting designs you would probably have a pretty fool prove arsenal.

In addition we have 3 basic materials, gal steel, alloy and stainless - which introduce other variables, smoothness (imparting a better ability to dive?), lightness without compromising strength and then a myriad of choices of steel, mild through to high tensile.

And to add to the variables we have simple plate steel shanks, Rocna, Excel, Mantus, Kobra (some of questionable strength), very thin shanks, Boss and the hollow shanks of the Ultra (it has buoyancy?) and Spade.

But despite the design differences we really do not know how these anchors actually work - and they obviously work completely differently and possibly there are strengths and weaknesses that have not been defined.

But to classify a Spade and Rocna as the 'same' or even the Mantus and Rocna as the same looks overly simplistic.

Jonathan

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

One facet to come out of this thread is that if anyone knows how the different designs work - they are keeping very quiet.

I think it is a goal we should aim for. A good engineer or designer can look at the blueprints for even a complex peice of machinery like a plane, or a yacht and predict its performance, strengths and weakness quite accurately before it even built. We should be able to do the same, only better with a simple peice of folded and welded steel.

Originally Posted by JonJo

We have a unique concave anchor, Rocna, with an upturn to the back of the fluke and a roll bar. It was mentioned the upturn was to allow the seabed that was passing through the fluke to be compressed between upturn and roll bar. As far as I am aware none of the other concave anchors have this upturn and roll bar. We have the Supreme with a tight concave fluke, no upturn, and roll bar and the Mantus with a very shallow concave fluke and extremely wide roll bar. It has been suggested that the 'wideness' of the fluke and roll bar of the Mantus is to ensure there is no compression. In each of these anchors the roll bar is a self righting device, though it also serves to compress in the Rocna.

One thing the Rocna, Mantus and Supreme have in common (to a greater or lesser extent) is a 'weighted' toe - that thickened plate.

So 3 anchors all crudely classified as concave, but all apparently working differently. In fact the design characteristics of the Rocna have been completely designed out of the Mantus?

I think these three anchors work in an almost identical way. We know the Rocna and MS have very similar performance and characteristics. The Mantus and Knox are newer and time will tell if the minor changes have made them better worse, or the same.

These are exciting times for anchors with the current best anchors Rocna/MS and Spade, both having new similar designs with some tweaks from rival manufacturers (in the Mantus/Knox and the Ultra respectively)

[JonJo]

Noelex,

You obviously ran out of ink, or have a short memory, as you missed out the Fortress, Excel, Kobra and SARCA. But maybe you simply have no charity for the thousands who disagree with you.

Jonathan

[Coops]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Noelex,

You obviously ran out of ink, or have a short memory, as you missed out the Fortress, Excel, Kobra and SARCA. But maybe you simply have no charity for the thousands who disagree with you.

Jonathan

Now that, is one sweeping statement.

Coops.