Photos of Anchors Setting

[noelex 77]

Sorry, this anchor was actually from a few days ago. I thought I posted the results, but obviously not.

It was a Bugel copy dropped by a private yacht that stayed overnight. 5m @ 4:1.

If you can get one of these that has correct geometry and balance it can be a very cheap way to get a good anchor. However, there are plenty of poor copies so you need to be careful.

This one was doing a good job. It was well buried with both the fluke and the shank completely covered. It set reasonably quickly, but not quite as fast as is typical for the better rollbar anchors. There was a moderate amount of heaping up. I suspect this is due to being a copy, but the 4:1 scope was also not a help. With the totally buried fluke it was still a good result especially from what is likely to have been a very cheap anchor.

[cagney]

Originally Posted by chasfgr

One could, perhaps, be forgiven for thinking it's another variation on the Delta.
Its sizing is also similar to the Delta.
Perhaps someone could elaborate as to how it differs, mechanically, from the Delta?

PS I think we're mostly in agreement that, just as with wine, there's no such thing as a bad anchor, it's all down to operator competence.
PPS It's good to see more and more contributions from more and more areas.

I think that these two photos illustrates quite well the differences between Sarca Excel and the Delta.

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by cagney

I think that these two photos illustrates quite well the differences between Sarca Excel and the Delta.

Unhappily they do not, really. Problem is, any photos are two dimensional. You can look at them and actually "see" the geometrical difference, because You know both anchors in 3-D reality, so everything is obvious to You, but not to somebody who never saw Excel by own eyes

[BigBeakie]

Having been on boats (not mine) that dragged, at night, up on the GBR when the wind piped up, I have for some time had a strong interest in anchor design so that when it came time to pick an anchor for my cat, I at least would understand the issues.

One of the first things I came to understand was just because something has the general shape of a "plough", does not mean it necessarily behaves like a plough. A plough is designed to cut shallow furrows in the soil and keep going, not to dig down deep and stop. A good anchor on the other hand is(or should be) the opposite to a plough and offer as much resistance as possible.

I sympathize with the opinion above that the differences between these 2 anchors are not blindingly obvious. But there are differences, and they do matter. Let's list them:

1. The Delta has curved flukes and two press faces at angles that direct the substrate outwards. The Excel has flukes and a single press face that are designed to force the substrate up and over the fluke. This puts pressure on the second difference, the...
2. Turned down weighted toe. The geometry of the (sharp) Excel turned down toe working in conjunction with the shank throat geometry and pressure from the fluke geometry/pressed face forces the anchor down. It also bites into bottoms that are hard to penetrate ie hard packed sand, clay, thick weed mat & my favourite ( NOT ), coral rubble.
3. The Excel has obvious cutting edges to the toe and fluke and this helps the anchor to track down. The Delta does not.
4. The logo lettering cut out in the fluke allows water to flow through the fluke as it moves through the bottom substrate. This relieves suction in some bottom types and further aids anchor penetration. This has been tested with and without the cut outs, and is there for more than just marketing eye candy.

The principles of the design, and plough turning over the bottom versus digging in and staying in the bottom, are illustrated in this video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=d7Q-Rkjdc1o

Hope this helps the discussion.

[gspeak]

Originally Posted by DoubleWhisky

Unhappily they do not, really. Problem is, any photos are two dimensional. You can look at them and actually "see" the geometrical difference, because You know both anchors in 3-D reality, so everything is obvious to You, but not to somebody who never saw Excel by own eyes

That may be so …. but even in 2D you can see so many differences in those two photos. They are like chalk & cheese to me. It may not show (prove) how well they work (or don't work) compared to each other, but surely you can see the vast differences in their designs. The angle & size of the shank, the added flanges to the flukes, the down turned sharpened point (some say bent), the different flanges, the different ideas.

Dave

[noelex 77]

This was a steel Spade dropped by a private yacht yesterday that stayed overnight. 5m @ 6:1

The steel Spade is an excellent anchor. This result was OK, but most of the time this anchor will do better than this.

The less than ideal setting technique was probably the cause - the boat initially put some setting force, but about 40 degrees from downwind. They paused for a couple of minutes. The boat was blown so that it lying directly down wind and they performed another near identical setting procedure in the new direction.

This is not ideal. Anchors like to set in a nice straight line. Once they are properly set the good anchors will "shuffle" around, but half setting them in one direction then finishing in another direction is not ideal.

I watched the setting procedure so I could see this occurring from my yacht. If you look at the marks in the sand they always contain a wealth of information about how the anchor has been set. You can see the initial chain mark in the bottom of the picture together with a drag mark in this direction. Halfway through the drag mark changes and head off in the final direction.

The Spade has set quickly, as it usually does, with only a slight amount of heaping up. The anchor has a significant list and the underside of the fluke is quite exposed, but this is caused by the messy dual direction setting procedure.

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by BigBeakie

Having been on boats (not mine) that dragged, at night, up on the GBR when the wind piped up, I have for some time had a strong interest in anchor design so that when it came time to pick an anchor for my cat, I at least would understand the issues.

One of the first things I came to understand was just because something has the general shape of a "plough", does not mean it necessarily behaves like a plough. A plough is designed to cut shallow furrows in the soil and keep going, not to dig down deep and stop. A good anchor on the other hand is(or should be) the opposite to a plough and offer as much resistance as possible.

I sympathize with the opinion above that the differences between these 2 anchors are not blindingly obvious. But there are differences, and they do matter. Let's list them:

1. The Delta has curved flukes and two press faces at angles that direct the substrate outwards. The Excel has flukes and a single press face that are designed to force the substrate up and over the fluke. This puts pressure on the second difference, the...
2. Turned down weighted toe. The geometry of the (sharp) Excel turned down toe working in conjunction with the shank throat geometry and pressure from the fluke geometry/pressed face forces the anchor down. It also bites into bottoms that are hard to penetrate ie hard packed sand, clay, thick weed mat & my favourite ( NOT ), coral rubble.
3. The Excel has obvious cutting edges to the toe and fluke and this helps the anchor to track down. The Delta does not.
4. The logo lettering cut out in the fluke allows water to flow through the fluke as it moves through the bottom substrate. This relieves suction in some bottom types and further aids anchor penetration. This has been tested with and without the cut outs, and is there for more than just marketing eye candy.

The principles of the design, and plough turning over the bottom versus digging in and staying in the bottom, are illustrated in this video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=d7Q-Rkjdc1o

Hope this helps the discussion.

It really helps a lot!
With the photos provided by cagney (thank You again, cagney!) and Your desription (augmented by gspeak post - thank You, gspeak!) we are at least into real discussion, not exchange of declarations of faith

I just hope for more and more action photos of Sarca and other less popular here anchors, like Knox or Tern.
Keep them coming, guys!

Cheers,

Tomasz

[NornaBiron]

Hi all. This has to be our 45kg Spade's deepest set so far. The fuzzy photo was taken from our bow, sorry for the quality, it shows just how deep the anchor has set. The 2nd photo was taken in our winter anchorage at Elounda, Crete, Greece (last year), you can see how much float rope is on the anchor and in this photo it is looped once around the stock. I have measured the float rope - the knot is at 1.3m. The rope was clear with no wraps when we up-anchored. A great result using full power to set, thanks again to Noelex

[monte]

Think I found a rock

[BigBeakie]

Hey Monte,

Aren't you lucky you didn't drop your anchor into that big black hole just to the right of your set on the rock!!!

[SVNeko]

Originally Posted by BigBeakie

Aren't you lucky you didn't drop your anchor into that big black hole just to the right of your set on the rock!!!

LOL

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[monte]

Yeah bb, that would have hurt!
To be fair to the kobra (and crew), the substrate is 4" of sand over rock. The kobra set fast and held like that on 4|1 scope in 8-12m for a day or 2 of 25-35k wind as well as the initial set with 2200RPM on both engines for 2 minutes. We arrived at dusk so with no chance to dive on the anchor, the setting force and set procedure was all we had to go on till we had and opportunity to dive on the anchor. While setting and reversing I always place a waypoint at vessel, zoom in and monitor it for movement as we hold reverse. Even a slight or slow drag is obvious.
Not sure what's going on wig the chain/shackle, it seems to be wrapped awkwardly around the shank...

[monte]

A better result after moving over 20m. Found some deeper sand and the kobra 25kg buried itself. 7m at 5:1. Set in less than 1m

[Tayana42]

Monte, Thanks for sharing the photos. Good for you and the Cobra.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[noelex 77]

This genuine Bugel was dropped by a private boat that stayed overnight in 4m @ 6:1.

It set quickly with minimal heaping up. The black line on the top is a rope not the shank. If not for the roll bar sticking up there would be little to see, as the fluke is completely buried.