Anchor Test in November YM

Well . . .

.
How could two anchors that appear identical (for example the Kobra2 and the Delta) give such widely differing results.
Click to expand...
I haven't read the article, but perhaps the answer is that they only look identical. I had a fake Rolex once that looked just like the real thing, but one of the numerals fell off into the date hole . . .

On the other hand, it could just be complete balls.

- W
 
Say what Bruce

I found the article strange. Not only because it seemed to have strange results, but it also did not contain any test of the Bruce anchor, or even of the fake versions that I understand are out there.
 
Sic transit gloria

The passage below concerns tests carried out around 1996: since then the Bruce has obviously lost its setting and holding capacity, probably due to the effect of global warming on the seabed...

The Bottom Line
In the Practical Sailor test to determine not only what anchor sets best in sand but how long it drags before doing so, the Bruce was the hands-down top performer. As indicated by the chart, there is no question that the Bruce sets quicker than any other anchor. The Bruce was followed by the Max, the Claw and the Fortress.

The Bruce’s reputation for setting was enhanced by the Seattle tests, in which it set 97% of the time. Even in two rocky bottoms in which all other anchors had complete or unacceptable failures, the Bruce had a 100% record for setting. (Its closest competitor, a Max, set 65% of the time.) Besides Bruce and Max, in the Seattle tests, with their setting percentages, were a Luke yachtsman (14%), a CQR (63%), a Delta (57%), a West Marine Performance2 (65%) and a Fortress (59%). (The Claw, Digger, Danforth and two prototypes in our test were not included in the Seattle test.)

(The rankings in the Seattle column on the chart were developed using data only from three test sites; not used were data either from those two rocky sites that some observers firmly believed were not proper anchorages or from the two veering tests, which failed to produce adequate numbers for anchors that otherwise appeared outstanding. If the bad site data had been used, Bruce would rank #1 on our chart under the Seattle ranking.)

If one wants to carry an anchor that will set, with an insignificant percentage of failures, in any but the foulest bottom, a Bruce is the undisputed choice. That’s why it is a favorite aboard so many cruising and charter boats.

But despite its excellent setting ability, in almost every holding power test the Bruce has been outdone by other anchors.
 
It seems to me that anchor tests in general are strange, this one being a particularly bad example I suspect. There are clear requirements for a trial of this type (various types of holding ground, replications so that consistency of results can be assessed, conditions of use which are representative of actual use rather than (for instance) use of much heavier chain than a yacht would use) which were not met so far as I can see.

Even a previous test reported in YM (December 2006), which seems to have been much more thorough, contained anomalies.

There's a problem with the results for the Delta anchor - poor in one test, good in another - which indicates serious deficiencies in at least one of the tests.

However, there is a problem common to both these tests in that the results do not reflect real-life use. In the case of the CQR, for instance, there will be many readers of this forum who will say it's a good anchor and that they have had good results with it. Others may, of course, disagree (and probably will), but the fact that some users have generally found that the CQR performs at least reasonably well cannot be reconciled with the test results which have found that the CQR does not ever set or hold adequately (or, apparently, at all). Clearly something strange is going on here, and until this can be explained I have limited confidence in these tests. A well conducted test such as that in YM Dec 2006 may give some useful comparisons but the November 2009 test says rather little, certainly I would hesitate to use the November 2009 article as a basis for anchor selection.

On the Bruce. The genuine Bruce is not made any more which is why the Dec 2006 article used a copy (which performed very badly). So far as I'm aware users of the real Bruce have reasonably good experience with it. This is a bit of a sore point with me as I inherited (so to speak) a copy of a Bruce which came with my yacht. It took me a while to realise just how spectacularly useless it was; in fact the manufacturer (who wouldn't put his name on the device so I don't know who was responsible) clearly put his profit above my personal safety. Close examination revealed some slight but presumably vital differences in geometry compared to the real Bruce. The offending article eventually finished in the scrap metal bin of the local council dump.

On the general topic of copies - Presumably a similar situation might arise if a maker copies an anchor which originally had a lead weight in the tip, but omits the expensive lead weight - one might perhaps expect a different performance, the lead was there for a reason. Personally, I would not touch a "copy".
 
nigelmercier said:
Is it just me, or was the Anchor Test in November YM complete balls?

How could two anchors that appear identical (for example the Kobra2 and the Delta) give such widely differing results. Because they are comparing performace over a random patch of sand in uncontrolled conditions, that's how.
Click to expand...

I have had a German magazine test given to me - unfortunately, in German.

This shows that a Kobra 2 and Manson Supreme came out on top with 4 stars. Interestingly the Rocna did badly with only 2 stars. A comment on the Rocna was that this was the first Chinese one tested - which is now made of a Cast Iron Fluke welded to a steel stock. Have they lost something in the design in manufacturing in China? It used to be really good, so what has happened?
 
orbister said:
Universal Law of Anchor Tests: The ones which do best are the ones most likely to take out expensive advertising.
Click to expand...

Did you mean that if a magazine reports favourably on an item, the manufacturer/distributor is more likely to place an advert in that publication? If so, I would be inclined to agree.

Or did you mean that magazines routinely distort the results of their tests to favour items already advertised? If so, I hope you have supporting evidence, a good lawyer or deep pockets (you might need all three).
 
I have read the article, however, it is not clear to me the extend of the trials. Using an anchor involves a lot of variables such as depth of water , type of bottom, motor speed also the luck factor, it is very important that a very large data is generated based on numerous attemts and tries. The average its more important than specific results. After collating reliable and representative data, then a conclusion can be made; the results of which will be suprisingly different.
 
Anchors; relationship problems.

Hi all anchorites! Sod's Law seems to apply.
A snagged tin can will render an anchor almost useless whilst setting.
The type of cruising area seems to influence the type which might be used.
I had years of satisfaction from a branded CQR in Irish waters especially Southern Coast.
A Brittany pattern anchor supplied with my next French boat was truculent and unreliable, even on their coast!
Moving cruising ground to the Med was the last straw for the Brittany pattern.
After several frights I looked around at many other boats anchors, then plumped for a Lewmar Delta, which will have been made in China no doubt!
This seems to penetrate hard Med sand well, but still careful setting is needed in grass bottoms.
I still find it difficult to sleep well when the wind is up, and wish I had the engine power of an earlier Motor Sailer, whose 1.5 BMC Diesel, 3:1 PRM box, and 22" Mickey Mouse ears type prop had loads of bollard pull. This powertrain made sure, by dint of reversing till black smoke emerged from the engine(just a puff), that setting was accomplished.
A CQR was more or less obliged to grip with this treatment!
PBO will not be damned with faint praise by this reader, as Nigel Warren's propellor articles and calculations were used to assemble the drivetrain mentioned above. Overpropping was the term I remember and revs were thus limited to 2500 RPM.

I wonder if with modern feathering propellor technology, I could repeat the above success, with the bonus of being able sail and tack without having the engine on, such being the only drawback of that 22" fixed beastie on the Motor-Sailer.

Happy Hallow'een and Guy Fawkes to all.

H'mm compressed air or gunpowder charge drives disposable harpoon from anchor at right angles into seabed to be unlatched later by radio control, emergency device for lee shores? Oops what if the anchor lands upside down!
 
CAPTAIN FANTASTIC said:
I have read the article, however, it is not clear to me the extend of the trials. Using an anchor involves a lot of variables such as depth of water , type of bottom, motor speed also the luck factor, it is very important that a very large data is generated based on numerous attemts and tries. The average its more important than specific results. After collating reliable and representative data, then a conclusion can be made; the results of which will be suprisingly different.
Click to expand...

I have some sympathy with the people who perform these tests. Doing it properly would be incredibly time consuming. For each anchor type you would want to do at least ten tests on three different weights of anchor in each of at least ten different bottoms loading three different ways (straight pull, intermittent poor, sideways oscillating pull) at at least five different depths with three different weights of chain and five different chain/rope combinations. That's 67,500 tests per anchor. Test ten different designs and you're looking at close to three quarters of a million experiments.

So of course they don't. They do, typically, two to five pulls on each type of anchor in one condition only. That may tell us something about how - say - a 25kg CQR works given a steady horizontal pull on a particularly sandy bottom, but it says very little about how a 35lb CQR will perform on a mud bottom with regular boulders used with 10 fathoms of 3/8" chain in a choppy F4.

There really is only one testing organisation which is capable of doing the hundreds of thousands of trials required ... the market. The market likes CQRs and Danforths.
 
orbister said:
The market likes CQRs and Danforths.
Click to expand...

Depends which market you are talking about. In UK, maybe, although I am guessing that the number of those two in use is declining steadily.

In the Med, where people other than charterers tend to anchor for many nights of the year and have a higher expectation of security, it is increasingly rare to see a CQR. Bugel, Delta, Rocna seem to be the most popular, although a surprising number of Britany are still seen, mostly on French boats. I don't think I have seen a charter boat with a CQR for a very long time.
 
Chris_Robb said:
I have had a German magazine test given to me - unfortunately, in German.

This shows that a Kobra 2 and Manson Supreme came out on top with 4 stars. Interestingly the Rocna did badly with only 2 stars. A comment on the Rocna was that this was the first Chinese one tested - which is now made of a Cast Iron Fluke welded to a steel stock. Have they lost something in the design in manufacturing in China? It used to be really good, so what has happened?
Click to expand...
I made a posting about this test here . It was clearly a very limited test with little or no details of the procedures used. Craig Smith of Rocna fame responded in that thread with what, I have to admit, was fair comment.

The test appeared so skewed that I wondered what the magazine's agenda really was. It was difficult to believe that such a large circulation and respected publication could print a test with such poor test details.
 
My experience of the CQR as bower anchor over many years has been that it is brilliant in clay or mud but less good in hard sand (where the kedge - a Fortress - does better). It would be handier to have a more all-purpose bower, so the relatively low price has persuaded me to give the Kobra 2 a try.
 
I think the demise of the CQR has a lot to do with the incredibly high price of the genuine article and the low quality of the many cheap copies. The rising popularity of the Delta is perhaps due to its reasonable price, simplicity and brand name! Plus it does seem to do the job - definitely better in weed in the Med compared with my old copy CQR but not convinced yet about sand and mud - mainly because not enough goes yet!
 
Tranona said:
I think the demise of the CQR has a lot to do with the incredibly high price of the genuine article ...
Click to expand...

'Mreally?

<yawns>

<googles>

DEAR SWEET EVER LOVING CHRIST ON A BICYCLE HOW MUCH????????????????????

Anyone want to buy a brand new, unused, genuine 30lb CQR? Would swap for Rolex, Bentley, lifetime supply of caviar or similar.
 
Hard sand

vyv_cox said:
Depends which market you are talking about. In UK, maybe, although I am guessing that the number of those two in use is declining steadily.

In the Med, where people other than charterers tend to anchor for many nights of the year and have a higher expectation of security, it is increasingly rare to see a CQR. Bugel, Delta, Rocna seem to be the most popular, although a surprising number of Britany are still seen, mostly on French boats. I don't think I have seen a charter boat with a CQR for a very long time.
Click to expand...

When mine dragged in the Med I used a Fisherman!
 
<<H'mm compressed air or gunpowder charge drives disposable harpoon from anchor at right angles into seabed to be unlatched later by radio control, emergency device for lee shores? Oops what if the anchor lands upside down!>>

As so often happens with a CQR with girt, heavy shank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top