thinwater
Well-known member
The video was watched hence the comment. I'm just challenging Steve's methodology, there are a lot of people out there who take what he is saying at face value and the single source of truth and I don't.
Still, I'm out of this thread. We all understand that anchors are a contentious topic. Until the anchoring/boating industry can develop a standard set of tests to compare different products the arguments will run and run, meanwhile I'll wait for the UK to return to a post COVID normal and go sailing.
Instead of criticism, offer something creative. How should anchors be tested? It can't be a single method, because there are so many variables in useage. Nice easy tests won't separate the wheat from the chafe. Overly exaggerated tests can reveal problems that don't actually exist. Relying on anecdotal evidence (sailor reports) is a very slow an inaccurate method, because sailors don't record the circumstances accurately, reporting is uneven, and each only understands his own experience. And then their is bias. They like their old reliable. They don't want to admit that what they just bought is no better than the old one. Often sailors up-size when they buy a new anchor--they can't compare that fairly to the old one. Sure, my 35# Manson was better than the 25# Delta. So would a 35# Delta. As I said, I started testing because anecdotal evidence was all over the place. I'm sure Panope and Neeves feel the same.
There is also the assumption that "testing" does not include regular field use. I'm pretty sure all of the testers have hung more than a few anchors on their rollers when cruising, to help fill in their knowledge base.
So what tests do we have?
- Straight pull. Multiple bottoms. Long scope vs. short; there are argumentative threads on the merits of each. Uniform bottom or a little variable (some anchors fail suddenly if they strike an irregularity)? Steady pull or static?
- Chain or rope rode. Yes, we use chain, but it disguises differences. But 100% rope is unrealistic in certain ways. Of course, using chain we never really know what the actual scope was.
- Veer test. Slow under load, as in frountal passage, or abrupt, as in a tide change or squall? Both happen.
- Fouling. What sort of mud? If sticks and stones, how big?
- Challenging bottoms. Cobbles. Rock. Very hard and very soft. Repeat all of the above tests... again?
- Data analysis; maximum (many mags report this), average, minimum, or perhaps several sigma minimum (my preference)? Minimum repeats on each test?
One more thing. What is the best rock climbing anchor? In fact, that is an intentionally stupid question. It depends on the situation. How do you test them? Since it depends so much on placement and the rock, you really can't, other than basic strength. But a good climber can work with most of them in most situations (even if only recognizing they are crap and climbing so as not to fall) and poor climber can crater with any of them. Therefore, like boat anchors, we need to understand what proper use is... and that's a whole nuther' argument.