Anchors and anchoring, one of Panope's latest videos

[Neeves]

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 .

I test anchor, as you might know by now and I use an aluminium Excel, and aluminium Spade and 2 x Fortress (a small one for sand and a bit one for sloshy mud). I've mentioned I use this quiver of anchors for years now. Most people would say my anchors are too small (their steel equivalents for Excel and Spade are 15kg and we sail a cat with the windage of a 45' AWB. Guess what Panope is saying about which anchors are better - maybe soon people will realise also its design not weight.

The Excel and Spade were both chosen based on my own testing. The Fortress choice was strongly influenced by the Chesapeake mud tests (which is why we have a big FX 37 but its far too big in seabeds other than slushy mud and (keeping to small is sufficient) we also carry a FX 16)

So I believe in the numbers.

 

[Adios]

In this video he mostly discovered that that place isn't an anchorage. Perhaps a camera on a string is the next sailing tech must have. "The Garmin Seabed Buddy"

 

[Adios]

Guess what Panope is saying about which anchors are better - maybe soon people will realise also its design not weight.

Apart from his quote here on this bed anyway where weight must be helping to push through the rocks. It seems likely to help

 

[NormanS]

Of course it's not just anchors. Jonathan talks about yawing and veering. He seems to use the terms indiscriminately and interchangeably. I don't know which is the correct terminology, but I was always led to believe that, with chain, veering simply meant the letting of more out. Maybe the use of language is different in Oz.
Anyway, instead of worrying about what I will term "yawing", why not do something about it, instead of just accepting it? Remove any unnecessary windage clutter up forward, rig a riding sail, (or simply sail a ketch ?).
Here's a theory: For generations CQRs were accepted as the bee's knees of anchors, and nobody condemned their use. Ah! but that was before practically every yacht anchored with a great big genoa rolled up round its forestay, adding a lot of windage in the worst possible place.

 

[thinwater]

...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.

True.

But I don't understand your point. Please explain. Diving won't tell up what is under the soil surface. Power setting doesn't tell us anything but what it is holding in that direction. The only full solution is to haul around a mooring block. Otherwise, we do our best with a reasonable mass.

 

[thinwater]

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 .

Throw away, no. Sell or change models on subsequent NG purchase, yes (not just the videos, but other testing--some of these changes predated those videos). I won't name names, but they were towards the left side of the table. They're still good anchors, so sell, not bin.

 

[doug748]

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?

I have watched just about all of his stuff, over the years, excellent. This is probably the least convincing, as I am not sure what use it is to know how any anchor will perform without chain.

However the Spade seems to seldom let itself down and it is often near the top of the pack. The Mantus has also been generally good, as has the Excel you mention.

.

 

[thinwater]

Of course it's not just anchors. Jonathan talks about yawing and veering. He seems to use the terms indiscriminately and interchangeably. I don't know which is the correct terminology, but I was always led to believe that, with chain, veering simply meant the letting of more out. Maybe the use of language is different in Oz.
Anyway, instead of worrying about what I will term "yawing", why not do something about it, instead of just accepting it? Remove any unnecessary windage clutter up forward, rig a riding sail, (or simply sail a ketch ?).
Here's a theory: For generations CQRs were accepted as the bee's knees of anchors, and nobody condemned their use. Ah! but that was before practically every yacht anchored with a great big genoa rolled up round its forestay, adding a lot of windage in the worst possible place.

Veering as a reffence to deploying more rode is primarily an English nauticalism. The first definition is to change dirrection.

In this case, veering suggests a weather front passage. You can't stop that. Yawing is far more rapid, only a minute or so, and yes, curing the problem is best. But yawing (short period veering) can also be caused by rapid changes in wind direction, common near headlands, and that cannot be stopped either. A serious problem in some areas.

Good point about the furled sails. Also big dinghies on the foredeck.

 

[Adios]

I have watched just about all of his stuff, over the years, excellent. This is probably the least convincing, as I am not sure what use it is to know how any anchor will perform without chain.

However the Spade seems to seldom let itself down and it is often near the top of the pack. The Mantus has also been generally good, as has the Excel you mention.

I watched a few more and yes the spade seems to stand out, pity they are so damn expensive though. This looks like a thinly disguised copy for half the price though. Hopefully its similarly effective Lewmar Epsilon™ Anchor - Galvanised

 

[doug748]

I watched a few more and yes the spade seems to stand out, pity they are so damn expensive though. This looks like a thinly disguised copy for half the price though. Hopefully its similarly effective Lewmar Epsilon™ Anchor - Galvanised

I would hang on for that but wait till Anchor Steve tests it!

The drawbacks of the spade were poor galvanizing (may have been improved) lead in the tip (means problems if you come to have it re-galvanized ) and a fabricated hollow shank (in the larger sizes), which some will not like

.

 

[NormanS]

Veering as a reffence to deploying more rode is primarily an English nauticalism. The first definition is to change dirrection.

In this case, veering suggests a weather front passage. You can't stop that. Yawing is far more rapid, only a minute or so, and yes, curing the problem is best. But yawing (short period veering) can also be caused by rapid changes in wind direction, common near headlands, and that cannot be stopped either. A serious problem in some areas.

Good point about the furled sails. Also big dinghies on the foredeck.

In this country "veering" is also used technically to describe what happens when the wind goes round in a clockwise direction - the opposite is "backing".
Different ships - different long splices. ?
Personally, if it was happening to my boat, I would either refer to it as "yawing" or "sheering about", but far more importantly, I would do something about it. I have a riding sail.

 

[Adios]

I would hang on for that but wait till Anchor Steve tests it!

No hurry anyway but its funny how we (including me) trust youtube reviewers over Lloyds certification. In the comments to Lewmars video someone else says words to the effect of "send it to steve and then we'll think about it"

Really from Lewmars point of view if steve does a half an hour review of it merely for the cost price of the anchor that is insane value compared to other advertising which we won't even believe. Steve could reasonably be asking for proper payment to include their anchor in tests

 

[thinwater]

In this country "veering" is also used technically to describe what happens when the wind goes round in a clockwise direction - the opposite is "backing".
Different ships - different long splices. ?
Personally, if it was happening to my boat, I would either refer to it as "yawing" or "sheering about", but far more importantly, I would do something about it. I have a riding sail.

That is the weather service definition here too, but it is not the first definition. Additionally, a boat is a "vehicle", not wind, so that is where we start. This is also what the context of videos support.

OED
Veer. [intransitive] + adv./prep. (especially of a vehicle) to change direction suddenly synonym swerve

• The bus veered onto the wrong side of the road.
• It is still not clear why the missile veered off course.

Yawing is irregular and short period. Veering does not specify the period or suggest that it is repetitive, as is yawing.

OED
Yawing. (of a ship or plane) to turn to one side, away from a straight course, in an unsteady way

And as I pointed out, often yawing results from sort period fluctuation in wind directions caused by either headlands or specific weather patters characterized by veering and backing every few minutes. Surely you have expereinced these, timing tacks to match heads and lifts. These cannot be prevented.

 

[sailaboutvic]

I just love it .......
Without saying what anchor I use although some here know that , if Mr Steve or anyone else compare my anchor to others and it come out last in their test beleave me I won't be selling it to buy one they recommend because of a test they did on a nice sea bed .
As someone who anchors every day for nine months every year and have been for a very long time although with Covid I doubt that will happen this coming year, on what every sea bed I find and have every confidence that come the morning I still be in the same place .
Nearly every time I see a boat drag it has nothing to do with their anchor, more the way they anchor.
You just got to read some of the comment on these forums .

 

[geem]

I would hang on for that but wait till Anchor Steve tests it!

The drawbacks of the spade were poor galvanizing (may have been improved) lead in the tip (means problems if you come to have it re-galvanized ) and a fabricated hollow shank (in the larger sizes), which some will not like

.

As I understand it there was a batch of Spades made with poor galvanising. I don't think they were all badly galvanised.
There is a problem that I pointed out to Spade. The exposed lead in the tip of the anchor sets up corrosion in the galvanising due to the circuit created by the seawater. I sent them some evidence of this from published literature. My new 30kg Spade arrived with the lead encapsulated in epoxy?. If you have a Spade it may be worth pouring some epoxy in to the void to seal the lead from seawater. This will likely extend the life of the galvanising.
This is my 4th Spade anchor. First one was purchased in 2003. I really like the Spade anchor. It stows very well on the bow roller compared to a Rocna. The Spade locks tight to the roller I think because of its shape where as the Rocna tends to rock from side to side.

 

[Sandy]

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 boat

As a department we were seen as an "overhead", but in order to get our product to market there was a requirement to get certification, overall there was a profit for the company. Personally, like most professionals I worked well over my contracted hours, the whole team did. We worked hard and played hard.

While the channel is clearly giving a service he obviously enjoys doing the work, as I enjoy doing voluntary work, and does ask for a contribution via Patreon. I know he won't cover his costs, I just question some of the methodology of his tests. I'll state it again perhaps the industry should step up to the mark and subject their products to some common testing.

 

[thinwater]

No hurry anyway but its funny how we (including me) trust youtube reviewers over Lloyds certification. In the comments to Lewmars video someone else says words to the effect of "send it to steve and then we'll think about it"

Really from Lewmars point of view if steve does a half an hour review of it merely for the cost price of the anchor that is insane value compared to other advertising which we won't even believe. Steve could reasonably be asking for proper payment to include their anchor in tests

... I'll state it again perhaps the industry should step up to the mark and subject their products to some common testing.
[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't that be lovely... but it won't happen.

Standards only get written with the USERS get involved and push the funding, and that would be me, you, and chandleries. The makers are better off either...

• Funding private testing in places where they will do well. Fortress comes to mind.
• Spending the same amount of money (or far less) on marketing. Several come to mind.

USERS are typically the drivers in setting standards, such as ASTM. The problem with the industry getting together is that they have more to lose than they have to gain. First, you want to know how the tests will be run, then you have to be sure you will win. Otherwise, it's a bad idea.

Think how many bits of gear this is true about. How strong is a mooring cleat (they aren't even rated)? Does a fuel additive do... anything? Which rope is more abrasion resistant (no standard test relavant to most boat uses)?

---

Manufacturers and regulators can be the drivers. We see this with safety gear (climbing gear, for example). But in this case the manufactures don't want to and I don't see World Sailing looking at anchors. They don't seem to push very hard on tethers, as an example (no side load requirement on biners).

 

[Adios]

... I'll state it again perhaps the industry should step up to the mark and subject their products to some common testing.

Wouldn't that be lovely...

It occurs to me there could be a down side to a single agreed testing method. As we all know sea beds and conditions are incredibly variable, even between one mud seabed and another. If there was an agreed testing standard all the manufacturers would work towards a good score on that which would end up reducing the variety available. It would reduce the likelihood of something oddball springing from the randomness and being just perfect for some peoples cruising grounds.

An example of this already happening is with sports cars where manufacturers all aim for a fast Nurburgring lap time and so some say this has been to the detriment of variety.

 

[Neeves]

Steve Godwin aka Panope has decided on a series of tests that he can conduct using the equipment at his disposal. He videos everything and you see most of what he does. The viewer can decide how he, the viewer, values the tests. The fact that he has a regular group of viewers who view his work, applaud his work, comment voluably on his work does not make his work right or wrong - but populist loudly shouted comments do nothing to increase nor decrease the validity of any work. There is a danger that a common view shouted loudly results in an incorrect, or inaccurate, conclusion - and I can think of examples of that (but you will not want me to quote ).

Steve has also set himself a problem. He has decided to look for funding. He is trying to monetise his work. He will now be under some obligation to provide a constant series of videos for those that fund him. I personally find his resetting tests questionable as it is very difficult to complete that exercise so that each anchor is treated in exactly the same way. I don''t say he does not try - just that it is very difficult (and I would say - impossible). Another factor with which I'm uncomfortable - he does not test the anchors of a size we use to their ultimate hold. There is a belief that all anchors 'scale' double size and you will double hold - no anchor scales like this. Double size and hold might increase by 70%. But each anchor scales differently some scale better than others (Fortress has been tested and roughly double size and hold increases by 83%. Bruce is down at the 70% increase. . So to test a 5kg anchor for hold gives no indication what a 20kg anchor might do.

This idea that Steve's videos replace the work done by Classification Societies is a joke. I've been directly involved in Classification Society testing and it is rigorous. They also test for anchor integrity - and Steve does not do that. Some of the anchors that are available on chandlers shelves would never pass the Classification Society test - and will bend like a cucumber sandwich.

This is what happens when you test anchors with some vim and vigour:

Anchor Tests: Bending More Shanks - Practical Sailor

Steve Godwin provides one series of (populist) data points but there are others, there are the famous Sail/West Marine tests, Voile et Voiluers made a series of tests and these were all reported in YM. There are tests reported in Practical Sailor, some anchors are tested by Classification Societies, Spade, Excel, Supreme, Fortress, Rocna, Epsilon, Delta, CQR, Ultra (I might have missed some) and some anchors have not been fully tested at all (but people still buy them) Mantus (M1 and M2), Vulcan come to mind. Noting that some untested anchors have populist support - based on subjective comment (but subjective comment sells anchors).

As Thinwater says: It is not going to change, live with it, make your own assessment, balance the various views and then make your purchase. But don't complain about the way anchors are tested unless you think you can do better - and if so describe how it should be done.

But just recall:

Nice pictures do not make a good anchor.

The frequency of loudly shouted comments does not make a good anchor.

There is, not yet, a perfect anchor that performs at the top of the game in every seabed - anchors remain a compromise, live with it (and carry more than one anchor).

Its interesting you don't expect your sails to be of value in every windspeed - but for some reason you expect your anchor to work perfectly in every seabed. Wind just gets stronger - seabeds vary much, much more.

Get some logic into your thinking

Jonathan

To comment on Athomson's post - that is actually what happens. Classification Society testing of anchors for Super High Holding Capacity is made by comparing the anchor under examination with an anchor already awarded a SHHP rating of the same weight (assuming a steel anchor). The standard was Supreme or Rocna which had been shown to have twice the hold of a Delta. Now an anchor to enjoy SHHP has to be shown as good as or better than a Supreme or Rocna, or Spade in 3 different seabeds (but the seabeds are chosen by the anchor maker paying for the testing). The results of the hold are based on 3 pulls of each anchor, using the same scope, same rode etc. The tests can be conducted using a vessel or terrestrially (the 4x4 with a big winch). The tests are conducted by the anchor manufacturer whose model is being tested. They supply all the gear and the labour (you need lots of labour). The CS simply supervise - if they don't like something it is done again, or done differently - if changes are not made to appease the CS - they don't get certification. All the equipment load cell will have been approved prior. The anchors to enjoy SHHP are then Proof Tested and there are standard tension under which these are conducted based on anchor size. Basically you secure the anchor toe and tension from the shackle hole (all held in a big cage ).

There are no complications like veering tests - simple straight line hold and then integrity (strength).

Why anyone would not accept the certification, accepting its limitations, beggars belief.

Basically the Sail and VetV and most other tests are very similar to the CS testing for ultimate holding capacity. This media testing has never looked at integrity - a grave omission when you think how some anchors have bent.

 

[thinwater]

It occurs to me there could be a down side to a single agreed testing method. As we all know sea beds and conditions are incredibly variable, even between one mud seabed and another. If there was an agreed testing standard all the manufacturers would work towards a good score on that which would end up reducing the variety available. It would reduce the likelihood of something oddball springing from the randomness and being just perfect for some peoples cruising grounds.

An example of this already happening is with sports cars where manufacturers all aim for a fast Nurburgring lap time and so some say this has been to the detriment of variety.

Yup, that too. They work hard to game the methods. Been there, done that.