Anchor testing - West Marine

[craigsmith]

No need to open another debate about the Yachting Monthly anchor testing - just thought this would be of interest to all. This is a table containing the summary comments as published in the 2007 West Marine catalog:

Since West Marine was the organization really behind this testing, it is interesting to see their own comments. Bearing in mind they sell some of the anchors included.

Now, no graphs.

No arguments requested, take it or leave it.

 

[fireball]

So the Fortress FX-37 anchor at 21.9lb is clearly the best .... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[craigsmith]

Yep - except it was twice the size of all the others, and broke! /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

 

[Twister_Ken]

I have a problem with these sort of results in that the most popular anchors around, the CQR and the claw (a Bruce-a-like) always seems to do badly and yet hundreds of thousands of yachtsmen use them with little or no problem whatsover.

Which makes some suspect that a company like West Marine, which has a vested interest in selling new kit, needs to diss old kit to persuade punters to change. Not saying that's the case, but one can't help wondering.

 

[craigsmith]

Well, considering that West Marine sell half the anchors which did badly in this, I doubt it. And with the supervision of no less than three international magazines, are you suggesting they fudged the testing? That's quite an accusation.

The CQR and claw systematically perform badly. If you haven't found that out yet the hard way, good luck to you. But they do, and many boaters know it. Which is why people like us try to make something better.

 

[Twister_Ken]

>are you suggesting they fudged the testing? <

No, I'm not suggesting it. I'm merely saying that one can't help but have suspicions when the tests seem to run counter to the practical exerience of most yachtsmen. Why would that be?

>The CQR and claw systematically perform badly.<
Not for the majority of real-life situations, otherwise we wouldn't leave them hanging over our bows.

 

[TiggerToo]

I have just "tested" a new ROCNA (15kg) which replaced my older CQR (35lb). THe conditions were not partciularly taxing (now gales this Easter!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif). My brief experience can be summarised thus: rocna really did set every time hard. Even in placed where I usually had to try a couple of times with the CQR. No probs in retrieving it. Ergo CQR is now in the locker to be used as a backup.

Only downside noted is that the realtuively thin shaft of the rocna can get wedged in between the roller and the flange of the bow fitting. This can be avoided by care when pulling up the hook. CQR's thick drop forged shaft did not do so and is superior in this respect.

Note that this is not "scientific" test, with controls etc. Just a testimonial of a satisfied customer (so far).

 

[DJE]

Probably because most of us cruising yachtsmen anchor in sheltered muddy creeks where any anchor would be satisfactory. We don't get loads in the anchor cable anything like the 2000 to 5000 pounds they are testing to. How many boats have deck gear that would safely handle that sort of load?
I'd always been happy with my old CQR copy until I tried it on a hard sand and gravel bottom and it dragged. Now I'm thinking again.

 

[ChrisE]

Funnily enough that's what I was thinking.

These ultimate load tests are great if you are in the 0.1 per cent of peeps that will anchor in places where they will need to ride out a hurricane but for most us what we want is something that sticks first time and stays stuck.

My experience of a CQR was that it always fulfilled the latter but not always the former. It's replacement, a Spade, does both.

 

[Pye_End]

I agree. Have had a CQR for many years, and always had problems in one particular spot which has hard sand. East Coast mud has rarely been a problem.

Anchored there the other day with my brand new modern anchor, and wow, what a difference. Burried immediately and held in spite of my going at full revs astern with half the chain piled in a heap. When it came up it was covered in gunk which showed that it got completely dug in - often the CQR would come up virtually clean.

Only based on one attempt of course, but that was all that was needed this time. CQR will be confined to the garden.

Agree with the bow roller comments though, and deck stowage is harder, but this is but a small price to pay.

 

[ChrisE]

I missed out the fact that the Spade now obscures the portside bow roller which makes pickiing up our mooring a bit more difficult but as you say, a small price to pay.

 

[alldownwind]

[ QUOTE ]
.......Anchored there the other day with my brand new modern anchor, and wow, what a difference. Buried immediately.......

[/ QUOTE ]
So what type is your brand new modern anchor?

 

[Davy_S]

My boat is anchored for six months of the year, but last week I was faced with a reall dilema. I had to glue a treadmaster sort of material on my engine cover, the plan was to glue it, then place a large weighted board over it until it set. This was the problem, do I use my trusted Delta and CQR plus a small Brittany? or do I buy a Rocna? I decided to go with what I knew to work, needless to say, the Delta and CQR worked perfectly, the material set and held to perfection.
If it ain broke ,dont fix it.

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[zzjfawce]

Second that. I have a Rocna and the only problem I have had is that sometimes it can be difficult to break out because it digs in so well (only a 30 ft boat and no windlass), so I have taken to using a trip line.

 

[Sinbad2222]

Noted that they didn't test the Britany which is 1/3 of the the price of the Fortress and being steel it never bends. As the Britany and the Fortress are virtually identical then logic would say that the Britany is the best of the lot.
I have only experiece of three anchors: CQR, Fortress and Britany. The Britany was the best but that's only one man's limited experience for what it's worth.

 

[vyv_cox]

Fudging

Toby Hodges was the YM representative on the test programme. I discussed the testing at some length with him: he insisted that they worked very hard to ensure the fairness and accuracy of all tests. He told me that the team did their best to lay anchor warps out gently, all in the same, correct direction, followed by application of pull to the same extent in each case. I don't think there is much of a case to suggest that the testing was carried out in as unbiased manner as possible.

Whether the tests give a realistic view of 'real' anchoring is another matter, and I share others' misgivings that an anchor that has been used successfully for generations has suddenly become unreliable.

I also think that, in many cases, we are splitting hairs. Does the fact that a Delta, for example, dragged a few times at 1500 lbs really matter to most of us? Interesting that YM are reporting measured anchoring loads, using the Anchorwatch system, that did not exceed about 160 kg in force 9 winds. Not just once, but measured over a 2 year period.

 

[HoratioHB]

Re: Fudging

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrggghhhhhhhh. Not ANOTHER 'my anchors is best thread'. The forum is starting to be taken over by anchor anoraks or one particular anchor salesman. Come on guys give it a rest.
/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[johnalison]

Thanks to all for confirming my doubts about my CQR. I use a 45lb one which occasionally fails to set. The East coast is not all mud and where it is, it is sometimes covered with pipeweed. On the other hand, a 10Kg Bruce with a few metres of chain plus warp seems to set easily and holds our 5+ tons. I may well be looking for something better and ease of use plus stowage at the roller will be my guides.

 

[jimbaerselman]

Re: Fudging

[ QUOTE ]
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrggghhhhhhhh. Not ANOTHER 'my anchors is best thread'. The forum is starting to be taken over by anchor anoraks or one particular anchor salesman. Come on guys give it a rest.


[/ QUOTE ] The thread title is clear. You don't have to read it.

 

[hylass]

<span style="color:blue"> See on: </span> web page

As an academic scientist and teacher, I am always very careful about my use of other's data in my own work. It is important to use proper citations whenever necessary. When using figures, graphs or tables taken from another source, it is particularly important to indicate any changes or modifications, even if it is just re-formatting. You can only attribute a figure, graph, or table solely to another source if you are presenting that figure, graph or table EXACTLY as it appeared in that other source.

The table you are presenting here is not exactly like the one in the West Marine Catalog. You have re-arranged the order of the columns, left out some of the columns that were in the original table, and have modified the contents of the "Material" column.

There is no problem with making these changes, it's just that you can not say that this is the table that was published in the West Marine catalog; rather you can say that this is modified from the table published in the West Marine catalog.

Similarly, with the graph that you were using before -- that graph was never presented by SAIL magazine (etc...). Rather, it was <span style="color:red"> your graph </span> , based on some re-calculations ( <span style="color:red"> that you did </span> ) using the raw data from that anchor test.
Thus it was inappropriate of you to attribute that graph to the West Marine/Sail Magazine anchor test. Instead, you should have said it was <span style="color:red"> your graph </span> , based on the raw data from the West Marine/Sail Magazine anchor test....

Best Regards,

Tim