Anchors and anchoring, one of Panope's latest videos

[Neeves]

I know that many of you are locked down and your weather might be pretty average for mid January. So..... with time on your hands Steve has released his latest video on veering of anchors - and it lasts for almost an hour!

Its not for the faint hearted and may come with some surprising conclusions (which may give you cause to comment)

Jonathan

 

[thinwater]

Will the roll bar become like the dodo, successful in its time and niche, but ultimately left behind by better solutions? Was it a necessary stepping stone? Did it become a fad? Will loosing the roll bar become a fad?

I'm not answering these questions.

 

[Robih]

I watched with interest. The conclusions are helpful but Steve does say that his results can be completely reversed by a different type of seabed - particularly about the Rocna. As we can’t carry about thirty anchors on board for different seabed types we end up needing to make the best compromise choice - so hard. Spade/Excel seems to be top of the pile at present - but it is an impossible choice - even the CQR did well in Steve’s test conditions! Most CQR’s are now to be found in front gardens as ornaments but maybe after Steve’s latest finding they will be relocated to the bow roller!

 

[Adios]

I was just about to check ebay for a 17lb excel when he says "just to note for the soft mud anchor test this performed the worst"


A person could go mad trying to find the best anchor but has anyone collated all his test and found the best all-rounder so far?

 

[Sandy]

I am less than impressed with his methodology, a friend pointed me at the channel last night. Does he have any training in testing or is he just lobbing lumps of metal over the side on a bit of string and sticking a strain gauge on the string?

 

[Adios]

I am less than impressed with his methodology, a friend pointed me at the channel last night. Does he have any training in testing or is he just lobbing lumps of metal over the side on a bit of string and sticking a strain gauge on the string?

What else should he be doing?

 

[Adios]

This was something I needed to know when watching his videos. From another one



on this boat

 

[thinwater]

I am less than impressed with his methodology, a friend pointed me at the channel last night. Does he have any training in testing or is he just lobbing lumps of metal over the side on a bit of string and sticking a strain gauge on the string?

Start at the beginning of his videos. Do your homework before throwing poorly researched stones.

Unless you have done anchor testing, it is hard to understand just how difficult controlling all the variables is, and how hard the work is. If anyone has a 6-figure budget to throw at 3rd party anchor testing I'm sure they could pretty it up... and not learn much more.

 

[Neeves]

I think the expectation that one anchor will suit all seabeds is a naive dream. Every decision we make, your choice of yacht, your car, is a compromise. Anchors are no different. Why you would think there would be one design to suit every situation is childishly silly but is an ambition of all anchor makers - so anyone thinking there should be ONE anchor is amongst good company (including me). For our car or yacht we spend the rest of our ownership looking at those who made other decisions (ones we quite liked) and dribble. But we don't say 'why do they not design a car that we can drive open topped in the south of France, use it to drive over a ploughed field, take 6 kids to the football and use it when our daughter gets married'.

You need a bower anchor that suits most situations, you need a spare bower anchor (in case you loose the first) and unless your cruising ground is mud - you need an anchor for mud (I don't see this latter offers a choice, you need a Fortress - which can also be something you can deploy from a dinghy as its light). So that's three anchors to start with. We have accepted the restricted application seabeds for anchors and carry 4 (all aluminium). If more people embraced aluminium as a metal to make anchors then the downside of weight would be reduced - but people think, erroneously, anchors have to be heavy.

I note the comment that CQR does well. A CQR is much maligned because it is difficult to set - many have used the CQR for decades - it is obvious that if it worked 30 years ago then it should still work now, with some skill and maybe luck. We have more reliable anchors now, we are lucky, but I'd expect a bit of development in the 90 years since the CQR was released

This test, which I have linked to previously, Is a different way of measuring what Panope did. He had a greater range of anchors, some of the designs were not available when this test was done.

Anchor Resetting Tests - Practical Sailor

But the test took a 4x4 with a 2,000kg winch, 3 men, 2 wives (they kept the notes, all the data and all the print outs) and prepared lunch, 8 hours of heavy labour to arrive at the conclusion that can be summarised in one, quite long, sentence. Having someone take notes and keep track of the data is essential as most of the work is wet and muddy/sandy and you cannot keep paper notes when you are wading around waist deep in water. To do the sort of work in the Practical Sailor article you need the correct tide and coordinate that with some decent weather. You need a beach with as few of the public as possible. Simply getting all the timings correct etc etc is a major hurdle.

The test was developed to measuring the impact of veering with as few variables as possible. You can decide how contrived it is.

The results from veering tests and a summary of real life anchor failures all come to the same conclusions - roll bar anchors have a major defect, they carry mud, they will not re-set until the mud self washes out and if the shore is close by - you will end up on a beach. You can say that Morgans Cloud (AAC), Practical sailor and Panope are wrong, the tests and data is invalid (but Luddites come to mind). If you anchor in soft mud then look at the Fortress Chesapeake Bay tests, on their website or use the Practical Sailor search engine. But having 3 independent 'tests' conducted by 3 totally different groups of people on different seabeds (and continents) coming to the same conclusions seems quite powerful to me.

We know that a roll bar is unnecessary, Spade and Excel (which happen to come top of Panope's list), are at the top of Morgan's Cloud list and mine (we carry aluminium versions of both). Coincindetally both are poorly marketed on an international basis and both are expensive (and in terms of anchor choice price and availability are critical).


I voted with my wallet - but don't rush out yet - wait till the Epsilon comes onto the market - it may change the whole ball game. The downside of the Epsilon is that it only comes made from steel - I'll wait for the aluminium version . I know - a silly naive idea!

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

This was something I needed to know when watching his videos. From another one

View attachment 107299

on this boat

That's possibly about right.

At a 5:1 scope and with 30m of 8mm chain deployed our catamaran lifts the last link of the chain off the seabed, so its all catenary, with a rode tension of about 70kg. 70kg is approximately the rode tension at 5:1 scope 30m deployed of 8mm chain in 17 knots of wind. Our catamaran has a windage roughly similar to a 45' AWB.

Yes - I've measured it.

For more detail on rode tensions

Anchor Testing and Rode Loads - Practical Sailor

I mentioned this earlier on another post but holding capacity might have some relationship to veering hold (don't know). But the holding capacity of most 15kg modern anchjoprs, Spade Rocna, Excel is 2,000kg (whether aluminium or steel ) but the maximum tensions I developed )and others will develop with a similar sized yacht (that 45' AWB) will be exceptionally 650kg. Beyond 650kg your wife will be on the phone to a divorce lawyer. My conclusion is anchors drag at less than 650kg, much lower than their 'holding capacity' so there are other mechanisms in play - that we have not yet quantified. Noting the maximum hold - a Delta, Bruce or Mantus will have a hold, 15kg anchor, of around 1,000kg.

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

I'm not convinced that testing anchors with a 4 X 4 tells us anything about anchoring a boat.

 

[thinwater]

A noticeable trend is that anchors that drag more than a few meters have a much higher chance of breaking loose completely. My belief, based on close observation during my own tests in somewhat similar seabeds, is that sudden breakouts are nearly always the result of something in the mud. A soft spot. Trash. Something that deflected the rode. Only truely clean sand is immune to this. Thus...

• An anchor that can rotate without rising or moving forward gets big plus points.
• Any anchor that is rotating and moving forward at low force is at risk of moving into a bad patch and tripping. This can happen if the boat is yawing actively, since the boat is veering frequently. The soil can liquify. The anchor will find a soft spot.
• The cures to the yawing weakness are a deep set and reduced yawing (less than about 45 degrees seems safe in testing--over 90 degrees is very dangerous).

 

[thinwater]

I'm not convinced that testing anchors with a 4 X 4 tells us anything about anchoring a boat.

OK.

Note, however, that the broad stokes of the conclusions were the same as Panope. The details will vary with any change in seabed, so only trends are important. In this regard the results were reproducable, and that is the basic measure of good science. No tester is disagreeing. Note that the 4x4 tests were NOT on a dried out beach, as some are.

There is no agreed upon test method. Pulling with a boat, without allowing the anchors to rest and lock-up, is not fully realistic in all settings, but that is what both Fortress (supervised my MD personnel) and Panope have done. Pulling with winches or4x4s is different from a boat, and can be either dynamic (steady pull rate) or semi-static (pull and then measure the residula tension held, then retension after a rest period and repeat--Knox did it that way, and so have I--very different results). I pulled from a twin-anchored boat, both steady and with rest periods (very different results, by the way). And the results I got matched up well with others, within the variability of the seabed (and I also used the same seabed as Fortress for some tests).

The tug of the rode on the anchor is a complicated thing and it does not lend itself to standardization across seabeds and designs. But that does not make any of the results wrong, so long as they are well-documented. They are just testing slightly different things, all of which matter.

 

[Sandy]

Start at the beginning of his videos. Do your homework before throwing poorly researched stones.

Unless you have done anchor testing, it is hard to understand just how difficult controlling all the variables is, and how hard the work is. If anyone has a 6-figure budget to throw at 3rd party anchor testing I'm sure they could pretty it up... and not learn much more.

I have had a skim through many of his videos, as I said I was only alerted to his channel in the last 24 hours.

To put my comments in to context. I've spend most of my working life in engineering, much of that in Safety Engineering (making sure that things in a safety critical environment don't kill you) both as the engineer signing off a report and for the last five years of my career as a regulator. Personally, I consider anchoring safety critical.

My major concern is he does not declare the test parameters, for example, what was the height of water, what was the set and rate of tide, what were the wave heights, how was the power applied - was this consistent for every test, did he always turn to port or starboard, what was the wind strength/direction was that consistent with every test, why did he select that stretch of seabed, was each anchor tested over the same stretch of seabed or different stretches, how much weed was there on the sea bed was that consistent, why was chain not part of the test, were the same size shackles used, why were the different sizes of anchors chosen as we go from 9lb (4.08kg) to 55lb (24.94kg) using the same boat.

He just gives an opinion given for one test of each anchor on one day. I will add that all of the reports I wrote or challenged as a regulator had a professional opinion as part of them, but this was based on a considerable amount of data that was reproducible. I see no data, apart from the video, supporting his opinion. I understand the service he is trying to give, but for somebody like me I could never buy an anchor purely based on his findings.

I know you have also been involved with testing of engineering plant and have written some extremely informative posts about different bits of kit that have failed which I have read with interest. I am sure that like me you have all of the above question.

Perhaps there does need to be some form of standard tests for different anchors? Something that others can do as I've left full time work and would like to go sailing when COVID allows.

Declaration: I have just bought a Knox 13kg to replace a Bruce 15kg and look forward to seeing his test on the Knox in the near future.

 

[Adios]

I think the expectation that one anchor will suit all seabeds is a naive dream.

I doubt anyone seriously expects that any anchor will be the best for every seabed but its a shame when an anchor is the best by a mile in one bed and the worst of all choices in another. Then you really need some tallow because we often don't know precisely what we are anchoring on. If all the anchors are tested in a high number of seabeds I'll take the one that has the highest average score but I'd not if it was rubbish in a common seabed. But it seems bizarre that that Excel could be so bad in mud having been so good in sandy mud. Will look for other tests.

You need a bower anchor that suits most situations,

Exactly, no one wants to be messing around in the dark working their way through a selection of anchors.

you need a spare bower anchor (in case you loose the first)

And ideally that is also suitable for most needs if its to replace the main. Not the main one does half the places but fails entirely half the time and vice versa. Then you need spares of both.

and unless your cruising ground is mud - you need an anchor for mud (I don't see this latter offers a choice, you need a Fortress

On Thames estuary and surrounding rivers greasy mud I found a danforth often useless due to a thin slimy weed we get, it would skid across it and become a ball of weed, if no weed it was ok though. On the other hand I found a fishermen anchor would set easily though the weed and hold well in the dense mud so it worked either way and thats the one I'd go with. Cheap as well, too cheap for reviewers I think. Different area I found a fortress would not set in a sandy bed because it had some pebbles on it. I've basically given up on that design entirely as its all or nothing.

I used to have a bruce which I used in a lot of places and that never failed to set and never dragged far though wasn't tested in any extreme weather. Last yacht came with a massive CQR type which the owner can't have ever used unless he removed the windlass and filed the holes. I donated it to his club and went for a Delta which seemed to always set though did drag one calm night I think because the pull was too slow to reset until the tide picked up. Not a scenario I've seen tested.

I note the comment that CQR does well. A CQR is much maligned because it is difficult to set

I think thats down to so many people having tried poor copies of copies. Trouble with galvanised things is you don't really want to sharpen the point if its going to rust away and stain your boat soon after. But poor CQRs always seem to accompany sold boats, so the owner can keep the better one he bought probably. So everyone has had a bad experience.

 

[thinwater]

I have had a skim through many of his videos, as I said I was only alerted to his channel in the last 24 hours.

To put my comments in to context. I've spend most of my working life in engineering, much of that in Safety Engineering (making sure that things in a safety critical environment don't kill you) both as the engineer signing off a report and for the last five years of my career as a regulator. Personally, I consider anchoring safety critical.

My major concern is he does not declare the test parameters, for example, what was the height of water, what was the set and rate of tide, what were the wave heights, how was the power applied - was this consistent for every test, did he always turn to port or starboard, what was the wind strength/direction was that consistent with every test, why did he select that stretch of seabed, was each anchor tested over the same stretch of seabed or different stretches, how much weed was there on the sea bed was that consistent, why was chain not part of the test, were the same size shackles used, why were the different sizes of anchors chosen as we go from 9lb (4.08kg) to 55lb (24.94kg) using the same boat.

He just gives an opinion given for one test of each anchor on one day. I will add that all of the reports I wrote or challenged as a regulator had a professional opinion as part of them, but this was based on a considerable amount of data that was reproducible. I see no data, apart from the video, supporting his opinion. I understand the service he is trying to give, but for somebody like me I could never buy an anchor purely based on his findings.

I know you have also been involved with testing of engineering plant and have written some extremely informative posts about different bits of kit that have failed which I have read with interest. I am sure that like me you have all of the above question.

Perhaps there does need to be some form of standard tests for different anchors? Something that others can do as I've left full time work and would like to go sailing when COVID allows.

Declaration: I have just bought a Knox 13kg to replace a Bruce 15kg and look forward to seeing his test on the Knox in the near future.

I spent my life as an engineer and understand very well. But we didn't work for free. Would you have produced said detailed and documented report, on your own time, and for free? He even supplies most of the materials and the test boats. No way in hell.

Add to your list of questions, "what I would put in a video, that I am producing as a volunteer project, and which is already far too long for most people to watch?" Heck, most interested people complained it was too long.

Very few people, other than engineers deeply interested in the topic, would understand all of the controls and have the patience to read it. I write reports for magazines, and they are trimmed 90% for length. reports for management were normally trimmed 99%.

----

It's a video. You can see the wave height. He is recording force, so I offer that tide hardly matters a tick. He stated scope, usually mentions water depth, and is using largly rope rode in later tests (little catenary), but even more importantly, you can see the angle of rode rise from the bottom, which is the thing that matters. I used 100% rope for some tests, specifically because the catenary effect goes away. But yes, the appropriate scope is always a challenge. If you have ever been involved in accelerated wear or corrosion testing, how to accelerate (exaggerate) the conditions enough to reveal differences, without exagerating it so much you reveal fake problems, is a difficult challenge. I spent 30 years working within ASTM on engine coolant and fuel aging tests, and it could take a decade to settle on a new procedure. 7-figures, just to develop a test. Most projects got dropped due to lack of funding. So yeah, I know the problems. In fact, I was working on a procedure for testing gasoline and fuel additives, since there are no standards in that industry, but the project died due to lack of funding. Bummer. I hate companies that sell snake oil, and many do.

 

[Neeves]

I'm not convinced that testing anchors with a 4 X 4 tells us anything about anchoring a boat.

There are 2 common methods of testing anchors. Neither method is defined precisely by any perameters.

Historically anchors have been tested from boats, big boats. The boats need to be big as they then have the engine capacity, in the form of a big winch (if they are held stationary with anchors) or they use the power of their engines. You cannot use a 40' yacht - it does not develop sufficient power to test the ultimate hold of an anchor. A rule of thumb is that you can develop 100kg of tension for every 10hp. A good anchor will have an ultimate hold of 2,000kg. To test to 400kg will tell you very little about the anchor. You could use a bigger yacht with a bigger engine - but someone will complain its not realistic. The problem,. or a problem, with testing from a boat is that it is difficult to see what is happening on the seabed. You could use a diver, but testing to ultimate hold and knowing things fail - its a H&S nightmare - and some one has to fund the diver (who will only dive with a mate, so 2 divers).

An alternative is to test in the intertidal zone with some form of device offering the required tension, the 4 x 4 with a winch. An advantage is you can see what is happening, the control of the tension can be very precise, you know the speed of the winch, there are no waves introducing snatch loads etc. You can also quickly vary the rode, should you desire and you can test at constant scope. This is how John Knox tested except he used a purchase system rather than a 4 x 4.

Th terrestrial system is reproducible. I can test a series of anchors today and another series tomorrow in exactly the same place, or nearby (so same or similar seabed, and I can test under the exact same conditions, same scope same speed of tension. I can also stand and watch what is happening - if there is a questionable result - dig the anchor out and check if it has caught anything on the toe.

How much detail do you want.....?

I have asked a number of times - if you are unhappy with how anchors are tested please offer your suggestions - we may have missed something. Most anchor testing now is conducted either by anchor makers or committed amateurs.

Amateurs are self funded but I have my own load cell, 2 in fact, winch and a whole selection of chains of various sizes, wires, shackles etc .

But in Panope's recent video, his report, we have the same result from an individual with no apparent commercial influence based in Washington State (I think). We have Thinwater based on the Chesapeake, Morgans Cloud who have a team of individuals feeding them test results and conclusions, myself based in Sydney. I think it powerful that this disparate group of people working in different seabeds using different test techniques have come to exactly the same conclusions for a specific group of anchors (those with roll bars - but it appears to be concave fluke anchors with roll bars that confine the seabed on the fluke).

If you look at holding capacity tests, as far back as the 2006 West Marine/Sail/YM tests then modern anchors have consistently returned that key figure I quote of about 2,000kg for a 15kg modern anchor. There is variation in results, different seabeds and sometimes Supreme is better than Rocna or vice versa - but the differences are not significant. Older anchors, and some badly designed anchors, have factorially different holds. This is despite the testing being done by different people using different techniques in different, commonly sand, seabeds. There is uncanny overlap of results.

One way of offering 'consistency' is to ensure that you always use a set of standard anchors, these currently might be Rocna and Spade. Include those 2 anchors in your test and we know, or think we know, how they will perform. People also recognise these anchors, they are accepted models - so if an anchor has half the hold of a Rocna/Spade then you have a feel for exactly what that means. If you have an anchor that has a much better hold than a Rocna and Spade (as with Fortress in soupy mud) you know what that result means.

If you look at Fortress results - they have been involved in a number of tests, some conducted by the US Navy, some in Chesapeake Bay some in California - the results are amazingly consistent (they choose seabeds where the anchor shows its best - mud (and most other anchors are pretty average).

So results from a cross section of tests are consistent and robust - what is wrong with the various test methods - that throw up the same answers.

If you think there is a better way stop being critical (that helps no-one - even off it makes you feel better). If you want better results define how it might be done. If you cannot think of a better way - then you are just having a whinge, for the sake of a whinge. Accept the data you are getting with good grace and make your own interpretation of the data, you can value it, or ignore it. Even better - if you think the data is wrong - produce your own data, publish and let 'us' judge your attempts.

Jonathan

 

[sailaboutvic]

So if I may ask after hundreds of Anchor thread and X amount of anchor video can anyone hold their hands up and say they have found the ideal anchor?
As anyone who brought a NG anchor been convicted to throw that anachos away and buy a new new NG anchor because of a video they seen .

 

[NormanS]

There are 2 common methods of testing anchors. Neither method is defined precisely by any perameters.

Historically anchors have been tested from boats, big boats. The boats need to be big as they then have the engine capacity, in the form of a big winch (if they are held stationary with anchors) or they use the power of their engines. You cannot use a 40' yacht - it does not develop sufficient power to test the ultimate hold of an anchor. A rule of thumb is that you can develop 100kg of tension for every 10hp. A good anchor will have an ultimate hold of 2,000kg. To test to 400kg will tell you very little about the anchor. You could use a bigger yacht with a bigger engine - but someone will complain its not realistic. The problem,. or a problem, with testing from a boat is that it is difficult to see what is happening on the seabed. You could use a diver, but testing to ultimate hold and knowing things fail - its a H&S nightmare - and some one has to fund the diver (who will only dive with a mate, so 2 divers).

An alternative is to test in the intertidal zone with some form of device offering the required tension, the 4 x 4 with a winch. An advantage is you can see what is happening, the control of the tension can be very precise, you know the speed of the winch, there are no waves introducing snatch loads etc. You can also quickly vary the rode, should you desire and you can test at constant scope. This is how John Knox tested except he used a purchase system rather than a 4 x 4.

Th terrestrial system is reproducible. I can test a series of anchors today and another series tomorrow in exactly the same place, or nearby (so same or similar seabed, and I can test under the exact same conditions, same scope same speed of tension. I can also stand and watch what is happening - if there is a questionable result - dig the anchor out and check if it has caught anything on the toe.

How much detail do you want.....?

I have asked a number of times - if you are unhappy with how anchors are tested please offer your suggestions - we may have missed something. Most anchor testing now is conducted either by anchor makers or committed amateurs.

Amateurs are self funded but I have my own load cell, 2 in fact, winch and a whole selection of chains of various sizes, wires, shackles etc .

But in Panope's recent video, his report, we have the same result from an individual with no apparent commercial influence based in Washington State (I think). We have Thinwater based on the Chesapeake, Morgans Cloud who have a team of individuals feeding them test results and conclusions, myself based in Sydney. I think it powerful that this disparate group of people working in different seabeds using different test techniques have come to exactly the same conclusions for a specific group of anchors (those with roll bars - but it appears to be concave fluke anchors with roll bars that confine the seabed on the fluke).

If you look at holding capacity tests, as far back as the 2006 West Marine/Sail/YM tests then modern anchors have consistently returned that key figure I quote of about 2,000kg for a 15kg modern anchor. There is variation in results, different seabeds and sometimes Supreme is better than Rocna or vice versa - but the differences are not significant. Older anchors, and some badly designed anchors, have factorially different holds. This is despite the testing being done by different people using different techniques in different, commonly sand, seabeds. There is uncanny overlap of results.

One way of offering 'consistency' is to ensure that you always use a set of standard anchors, these currently might be Rocna and Spade. Include those 2 anchors in your test and we know, or think we know, how they will perform. People also recognise these anchors, they are accepted models - so if an anchor has half the hold of a Rocna/Spade then you have a feel for exactly what that means. If you have an anchor that has a much better hold than a Rocna and Spade (as with Fortress in soupy mud) you know what that result means.

If you look at Fortress results - they have been involved in a number of tests, some conducted by the US Navy, some in Chesapeake Bay some in California - the results are amazingly consistent (they choose seabeds where the anchor shows its best - mud (and most other anchors are pretty average).

So results from a cross section of tests are consistent and robust - what is wrong with the various test methods - that throw up the same answers.

If you think there is a better way stop being critical (that helps no-one - even off it makes you feel better). If you want better results define how it might be done. If you cannot think of a better way - then you are just having a whinge, for the sake of a whinge. Accept the data you are getting with good grace and make your own interpretation of the data, you can value it, or ignore it. Even better - if you think the data is wrong - produce your own data, publish and let 'us' judge your attempts.

Jonathan

Well, that's me put in my place. Sorry if I seem to have touched a raw nerve. ?
All I'm saying is that in my amateur experience, the load on the anchor rode, in strong wind, is anything but the steady pull of a winch or 4 X 4 vehicle. It fluctuates. Is that not why you use a snubber and I use catenary?
I always think it strange that so much time and effort is put in to the theoretical behaviour of anchors, and that so little is put in to the choosing the actual seabed that they will be used in/on. You can have the best anchor in the world, but if its tip fouls even a tiny obstruction lying on the seabed (think tin can, piece of cloth etc), it simply will not get a grip.

 

[Neeves]

Well, that's me put in my place. Sorry if I seem to have touched a raw nerve. ?
All I'm saying is that in my amateur experience, the load on the anchor rode, in strong wind, is anything but the steady pull of a winch or 4 X 4 vehicle. It fluctuates. Is that not why you use a snubber and I use catenary?
I always think it strange that so much time and effort is put in to the theoretical behaviour of anchors, and that so little is put in to the choosing the actual seabed that they will be used in/on. You can have the best anchor in the world, but if its tip fouls even a tiny obstruction lying on the seabed (think tin can, piece of cloth etc), it simply will not get a grip.

Not a raw nerve, at all.

I like critical comment - and I'd like as much input as possible into improving anchor assessment techniques.

Currently we know that old gen anchors with a hold of roughly 50% od new gen anchors tend to drag more frequently than new gen anchor. Crudely double the holding capacity and you have less chance of dragging. In the absence of other information of 2 anchors of the same weight the one with the higher hold will drag less frequently.

So to measure excellence, measured in terms of propensity to drag - measure hold

This is crude - but its all we have. So if an anchor has not be tested for hold I would not touch it with a barge pole and certainly not allow it to touch my rode. I can think of anchors being sold today that have not enjoyed holding capacity tests, even by the anchor maker - and I wonder (but would not touch them with a barge pole).

However anchors drag for other reasons, veering for example. Until someone comes up with a simple way of assessing veering in such a way that people will accept the tests, they are relatively simple to do (think cheap) and provide repeatable results - we are left with holding capacity as a measure of excellence.

Tin cans, towels, laundry, supermarket trolleys (even carpets), bits of water logged timber - just part of life's rich tapestry (that you will be unlikely to check out if you arrive in an anchorage at 2 am. But this is why you power set your anchor - if it does not set, maybe its the carpet . Of course you can power set and 2mm in front of your anchor's toe is a tin can (just lurking g there waiting to be impailed) we once caught a 4.5kg gas cylinder - that's bad luck (and why you still use an anchor alarm.

A winch on a 4x4 cannot simulate the natural variability of wind but it can measure holding capacity and it is reproducible. It does define anchors with good hold (conveniently they are twice the hold of older anchors (so a factorial and distinct difference - its not a bit better but twice as good) and as these better anchors don't drag - I'm happy to stick to the 4x4 and winch - until something better comes along.

People who have not been living with the problem you pose might be able to 'think outside the box', 'see the wood for trees' come 'off the wall' - and I'm an optimist and hope one day we can do better.

You will recall that many months ago I initiated a thread on dragging of anchors and by and large no-one with a new gen anchor confessed to their dragging. New gen anchors have that 2 times hold of old gen anchors - so hold though it bears no relationship to the tensions at which anchors DO drag is all we have. Its more complicated than that as yawing anchors with a clogged fluke will drag (which is where Morgans Cloud came from) so hold is not everything. My tests showed that if a clogged fluke anchor does drag it will not 'auto-reset' until the fluke is washed clean (and you might be on a beach before then) and Panope has added some colour to the 'dragging effect'.

We thus need to refine the idea that hold is everything, we need a few caveats. Ideally those caveats need to be better defined - for example is the problem true of big anchors as well as small ones (or vice versa). I suspect its less of an issue in sand - because sand does not clog. There is more work to be done.

You are right wind is very unsympathetic, it gusts and then it gusts from a slightly different direction, then it dies down and just when you think its all over - it pipes up again and sings a stronger song in the rigging - find me a test to simulate that!

So - if you, and others, want better testing help ys find a better, another method. If you recall I've mentioned twitching of the anchor - so I have measured (subjectively) other aspects. I'm interested in accelerometers as a method of defining other inputs. So I'm scratching around - hopefully we will move forward.

But keep asking the questions - they can spark off ideas.

Jonathan