Anchor testing - West Marine

Ah, so the negativity arrives with Poiraud. Alain, clearly disingenous of you to attempt to sabotage such an objective thing as a simple table...

For the record, Tim misunderstood my post and assumed I was saying the chart is identical to that from West Marine, when all I am quoting is the comments. Copying the entire table would be a little tort called copyright infringement - a concept you are, based on your past behavior, evidently unfamiliar with.

Perhaps you don't like West Marine's comments concerning the Spade, let alone the Oceane...
 
[ QUOTE ]
Noted that they didn't test the Britany ... being steel it never bends.

[/ QUOTE ]

Britordue3.jpg


[ QUOTE ]
As the Britany and the Fortress are virtually identical [ /quote]

Yes.. like a Duck and a Seagul... /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Britany1.jpg

Look at this corckscrewwing curve..

The Britany is one of the worse available anchor on the today market... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
and have modified the contents of the "Material" column.

[/ QUOTE ]

Craig, I can understand a summary of a table and understand why you wouldn't want to publish the whole table - but please make it CLEAR to the readers that this is what you have done, you did state it was a summary (ie not the whole report), but did not say that you had cropped the table.

If you have modified the contents of the Material column then you could stand accused of mis-representation - if the table contains mistakes then let the mistakes stand and correct them in your text.

Does anyone (else) have the original table to hand?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yes.. like a Duck and a Seagul... /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]Well I have to agree with you there. I was going to answer that post myself but knew you'd be along soon /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Craig, I can understand a summary of a table

[/ QUOTE ]See above. Sorry if it wasn't clear. This is a table, containing the summary comments of West Marine (which, to be clear, are complete and verbatim). There are two other columns in the West Marine catalog chart: price, and "style" (plow/claw/etc). I haven't bothered with either because the price figures are USD and contain mistakes anyway, and then I kind of ran out of room. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
another anchor test - says the Rocna tended to drag at first ....

[/ QUOTE ]It's the same test - interesting how their comments conflict with West Marine, SAIL, and Yachting Monthly.
 
Thankyou ... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
So the only differences in the material are the missing "Galvanized" bit of the Steel and the Ballast from the lead (Spade S80).

I'm one of those lucky b*st*rds that has a CQR that seems to set quickly and easily ... mud/sand/weed etc ... but then we've only used it as a Lunch hook!!
 
Yes. Also interesting that you don't quote from this report, but choose only the more favourable ones. Whereas the real conclusion is that variability in the test results means that there's an uncertainty of around +/- 20% to 40%, which is sufficient to differentiate between older and more modern anchors, but not sufficient to differentiate between one or the other modern anchor.

Another limitation or bias of the test was that it was conducted with 1:5 scope, at which most Danforth and Britany anchors will not hold - they need 6:1 with a straight rode.
 
Ken - I wonder how many people use them seriously. I know from my experiance of using CQR is that I would normally have to anchor (on anything other than mud) 2, 3 or 4 times to get a set I was happy with. - Ie 59 horse pulling back. In clear water - when I could see the anchor (med) I never did get it to set other than on its side. So may be its just inertia - I really don't think that west marine would condemn their own anchors in the way that they have.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Also interesting that you don't quote from this report, but choose only the more favourable ones. Whereas the real conclusion is that variability in the test results means that there's an uncertainty of around +/- 20% to 40%, which is sufficient to differentiate between older and more modern anchors, but not sufficient to differentiate between one or the other modern anchor.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't quote from the Power & Motoryacht write-up because it's shocking. It completely contradicts both SAIL and Yachting Monthly, is very shallow, and they by their own admission were not present at one set of testing.

Both the SAIL and Yachting Monthly write-ups are good in-depth articles. While SAIL reports the data in more detail, I would say Yachting Monthly's writing is more researched and thoughtful.

Anyway the whole point of this thread was to go to the source: West Marine, who were the actual people who did the testing, and have to be the ultimate authority on the matter...

[ QUOTE ]
Another limitation or bias of the test was that it was conducted with 1:5 scope, at which most Danforth and Britany anchors will not hold - they need 6:1 with a straight rode.

[/ QUOTE ]That's not right either, they tested at three scopes - 3:1, 5:1, and 7:1. You're also contradicted by the fact that the Fortress did quite well.
 
An interesting observation... and one that has played on my mind for some time while I have stayed out of these anchor threads....

I have been a life long CQR biggot.... firmly placing my trust in them.... and indeed have found them to set OK... with perhaps the odd time where i've had to lay it a couple (or once 3) time to get it to set, and only once finding it losing its grip on the turn of the tide....

However, Upon the recent purchase of a new boat, it had a Delta.... I have to say it took me by suprise.... upon dropping it, it set so quickly that I wondered for a second if I had fouled something, bringing the boat up very sharply when reverse was engaged....... and then it made the windlass work bloody hard upon retrieval later.....

I am now therefore reviewing my prejudices, and prepared to consider alternatives.... alongside the largish delta, I will eventually place a second bow anchor, and it will probably be one of the new designs, dare I say it, a Rocna or Spade....

There... i've said it... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
interesting how their comments conflict with West Marine, SAIL, and Yachting Monthly.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is quite surprising to note that after doing so wonderful results..
West Marine decided to take the representation of.. the Manson SUPREME !!

It is also interesting to see the comments from Yachting Monthly :
( Yachting Monthly - Any Questions: Bubble anchor )
Yacting Monthly

The December 2006 issue of YM contained the magazine's biggest ever anchor test.

<span style="color:red"> One innovative anchor - the HydroBubble - stood out. </span>

So somebody may be wrong?? Craig Smith when he says the Rocna was # 1
or Yachting Monthly??
 
"Comments from Yachting Monthly", what, a letter to the editor from HydroBubble? These are the same people that think that something has more floatation the deeper it sinks?

Try: Yachting Monthly December 2006 Editor's Log... "The revelation of our tests was the superior performance of the new generation of roll-bar style anchors from Down Under - the New Zealand-designed Rocna and Manson Supreme"...
 
So I should apologize..

No other magazine test to publish here..

Only some REAL LiFE comments

caribbeansoul.us

February 18, 2007

Georgetown: Weathering the Big Blow

Soon we hear boats on the radio who are dragging anchors. Up ahead, we see friends on Pelican go broadside to the wind and struggle to get their anchor up and redeployed. Behind us, a boat drifts away and has to reset. Down in the Red Shanks anchorage, Irish Fever's <span style="color:red"> top-rated Rocna anchor drags </span> . They motor around the harbor until the wind abates enough to re-anchor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top