Epsilon Anchors infos

[Mr Cassandra]

Heath Robinson of the anchor world lots of guesses .few constant tests results.
A wooden launch Frame, , trying to" bend " straight a shank with 3x2 wood ...
Imo this is a a You tube money making exercise.
Buy himself a electric windless next

 

[alahol2]

But then Rocna also disappoints - there is a contradiction there - that no-one questions.

The contradiction being...?

Heath Robinson of the anchor world lots of guesses .few constant tests results.
A wooden launch Frame, , trying to" bend " straight a shank with 3x2 wood ...
Imo this is a a You tube money making exercise.
Buy himself a electric windless next

He's got 5K subscribers... I bet he's really minting it.
Heath Robinson or not at least he's got off his a... and is giving us some valuable, real life, video footage of what our anchors get up to when we're not looking.

 

[thinwater]

I noticed in Panope's last video he separated performance factors from other factors (galvanizing, price, etc.). I think he listens to feedback. He's opinionated at times, but so are we. Is it the last word? No. Research seldom is. But it is usable data.

 

[Neeves]

The contradiction being...?




He's got 5K subscribers... I bet he's really minting it.
Heath Robinson or not at least he's got off his a... and is giving us some valuable, real life, video footage of what our anchors get up to when we're not looking.

It may be that his testing of anchors is simply not how anchors perform in real life - but how he thinks they might perform. The tests simulate how he thinks anchor perform when hidden from your view - there is no evidence given that supports, or not, his simulation.

As an example - the resetting tests are sudden and harsh. How many times have you sat at anchor and the wind turned through 180 degrees and increased to 30 knots in a flash.

The contradiction is that he does not rate Rocna in his veering and resetting tests (because the anchor collects mud and does not re-set). These are critical tests in his assessment. Rocna is popular, maybe the most popular of the anchors released in the last 15 years. If the tests he performs were indicative of common issues then the anchor would not be popular and seen on so many bow rollers. The 'weakness/defect' for which these veering tests are designed to highlight do not exist or it is such a low incidence that people simply ignore the issue. I am the first to agree that if you lose your yacht because of the weakness that has been high lit (and mentioned previously by other people - its not new) then that loss is catastrophic - but those losses seemed to be factored into people's purchases - basically they ignore the issues.

If the incidence of failure due to veering is low (and this seems reflected in the popularity of Rocna), then it is overly weighted in the performance spread sheet.

Interestingly speed and reliability of setting, which Geem points out (and with which I agree) is a primary characteristic looked at by buyers and owners is not included in the assessment - yet veering and resetting enjoys a number of columns, in the spreadsheet and is (or are) the primary vehicle to assess in water performance. What is very strange is that in many of the videos the anchor under test is moving when it should be stationary and this movement is ignored

Basically the in water tests focus, very strongly, on a characteristic that buyers simply do not recognise - now if that is not a contradiction I wonder what is.

He may have got off his a... - but he is studiously ignoring ultimate holding capacity - which has been used for decades to evaluate anchor performance. Every test of anchors over the last decades involving people who have specialised in anchor testing and design, including Yachting Monthly, SAIL, West Marine, Voile et Voileurs, the US Navy, Bruce anchor, Vryhof, Lloyds, ABS etc ALL use holding capacity as the primary measure of performance. It is a confident individual to ignore the results - completely. I do accept that measuring ultimate hold is difficult - but there is not a single mention of the hold data freely available. It would be very common to refer to previous testing - why ignore what has been accepted for years - without mention.


On a separate note

In the Epsilon video he demonstrates the self righting aspect of the anchor. The demonstration is true of virtually all anchors, except those like a Fortress/Danforth/Britany etc. In order for an anchor to self right in the manner shown the anchor needs to be sitting on a fairly firm substrate. If the substrate is sufficiently soft the roll bar or the edge of the shank will not sit in the manner illustrated and will sink into the substrate. The anchor will then be partially or wholly inverted until such time as it is dragged, inverted, until it meets a harder piece of seabed. It will obviously not set if 'upside down'. As Fortress showed in their Chesapeake mud tests the only anchors offering any ability to develop hold are Danforth/Fortress types. The Mantus anchor gave a mediocre performance (as it is a welded up fluke anchor) but its hold reflects its low fluke/seabed angle and would not develop reliable hold for an overnight stop).

If you are likely to anchor in soft mud - then trying to use a 'conventional' anchor may lack success - consider carrying and using a Fortress, possibly one with a decent fluke area.

Note that in the Panope videos, and/or all of them, clean sand is not a seabed being used (because it is unpopular? ), nor is soupy mud. Cobblestones gets high priority as it is used to measure galvanising as well as performance - how many people anchor in stony seabeds?

Jonathan

 

[alahol2]

It may be that his testing of anchors is simply not how anchors perform in real life - but how he thinks they might perform. The tests simulate how he thinks anchor perform when hidden from your view - there is no evidence given that supports, or not, his simulation.

He's not particularly trying to simulate anything, he's doing some tests and giving you video of the results.

As an example - the resetting tests are sudden and harsh. How many times have you sat at anchor and the wind turned through 180 degrees and increased to 30 knots in a flash.

Never, and I hope never to in future.

The contradiction is that he does not rate Rocna in his veering and resetting tests (because the anchor collects mud and does not re-set). These are critical tests in his assessment. Rocna is popular, maybe the most popular of the anchors released in the last 15 years. If the tests he performs were indicative of common issues then the anchor would not be popular and seen on so many bow rollers. The 'weakness/defect' for which these veering tests are designed to highlight do not exist or it is such a low incidence that people simply ignore the issue. I am the first to agree that if you lose your yacht because of the weakness that has been high lit (and mentioned previously by other people - its not new) then that loss is catastrophic - but those losses seemed to be factored into people's purchases - basically they ignore the issues.

Several times he has pointed out that 'his' Rocna has, what he considers to be, manufacturing faults. ie it is not symmetrical (shank pointing off to one side, fluke with unaligned weld). He's done the tests, he's got the results, he's shown you the video. Make your own mind up.

If the incidence of failure due to veering is low (and this seems reflected in the popularity of Rocna), then it is overly weighted in the performance spread sheet.

In your opinion, which you are entitled to.

Interestingly speed and reliability of setting, which Geem points out (and with which I agree) is a primary characteristic looked at by buyers and owners is not included in the assessment - yet veering and resetting enjoys a number of columns, in the spreadsheet and is (or are) the primary vehicle to assess in water performance. What is very strange is that in many of the videos the anchor under test is moving when it should be stationary and this movement is ignored

Basically the in water tests focus, very strongly, on a characteristic that buyers simply do not recognise - now if that is not a contradiction I wonder what is.

But he's not trying to sell anchors.

He may have got off his a... - but he is studiously ignoring ultimate holding capacity - which has been used for decades to evaluate anchor performance. Every test of anchors over the last decades involving people who have specialised in anchor testing and design, including Yachting Monthly, SAIL, West Marine, Voile et Voileurs, the US Navy, Bruce anchor, Vryhof, Lloyds, ABS etc ALL use holding capacity as the primary measure of performance. It is a confident individual to ignore the results - completely. I do accept that measuring ultimate hold is difficult - but there is not a single mention of the hold data freely available. It would be very common to refer to previous testing - why ignore what has been accepted for years - without mention.

Maybe he gives we 'buyers' the respect of knowing where to look for that information.

On a separate note
...

You are obviously just as engrossed in the foibles of anchors and anchoring as he is. Why not just take the information he provides and run with it rather than carping at his methods?

 

[Neeves]

Alahol2

If you don't mind me saying so - I'd say, you are carping

I do take his information on board ands find that the 'in water' assessment is largely based on veering or variations of - there is more to anchors than their extreme veering characteristics.

You are obviously following his videos with care. Not everyone spends that time and certainly do not seem to question. There is the danger, that happens on other threads, that people believe everything they see (especially video and photographs, and is written.

One badly made anchor does not mean they are all badly made. Maybe that one was made on Monday, or Friday. If you want to be critical then you should go to a chandler and see how others anchors of the same design are made - Was it a Monday/Friday production - or is this typical?

If you look at some of the comments

I paraphrase

'If you want to learn about anchors look at the Panope videos'

There is a lot to learn - but some of it might not have full applicability.

Other threads are better examples but I'll refrain.

The whole basis of Forum is to allow discussion and the expression of alternative views . You seem to imply you would prefer this not to happen and we all acquiesce - sorry I beg to differ. You may call it carping - but I hardly think commenting on the lack of Holding Capacity data, or the fact that in many videos the anchors is said to be, or meant to be 'set' (locked up) and it is actually moving.

If you read other threads on the same subject I fully acknowledge the effort required to both run the tests and produce the videos - that does not deny me the opportunity to, as you put it, carp. Which I will continue to do, and you may continue to call it carping (which suggests you are unhappy at the expression of dissent) - I'm more than happy.

Take care, stay safe.

Jonathan

 

[Mr Cassandra]

He's got 5K subscribers... I bet he's really minting it.
Heath Robinson or not at least he's got off his a... and is giving us some valuable, real life, video footage of what our anchors get up to when we're not looking.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps one of these 5000k could pay for a S/Steel self launcher and a pneumatic pump with a gauge , to test bending force on a shank...
Or do you think random lengths of wood 3x2 held via G clamps is a scientific test?

 

[Robih]

Or do you think random lengths of wood 3x2 held via G clamps is a scientific test?

I don’t recall him suggesting it was a scientific test - more him just seeing if he could bend it straight for the benefit of the anchor.

 

[Neeves]

Shank testing does not need much cash.

You need to secure the fluke, for one test I simply drilled 3 holes in the fluke and using masonry bolts held the fluke stationary. I then used a chain winch with a load cell to tension the shank. You do need something robust to secure the chain winch (I used a reinforced concrete pillar). It helps if you have something to protect you, I used the pillar, in case of accidents. Commercially you would use a pneumatic piston and the anchor held within a cage. There is a picture of a much simpler rig, as used by Fortress. If you are testing anchors you would normally have a load cell as part of your kit and a chain winch has many uses - including providing tension to measure holding capacity.

Anchor Tests: Bending More Shanks - Practical Sailor

Bends and Breaks: Anchor Shank Strength - Practical Sailor

Shank strength became a big issue but in general is has not been of much note.

Classification Societies do test shank strength as part of SHHP certification.

You would need to be really clever to define the engineering of a shank and its strength - by just looking at it. Vyv Cox (check his website) has a very simple test to measure the tensile strength of the steel used in the shank. All you need is an engineers vice, a couple of stainless steel ball bearings, maybe 10mm diameter, and a set of standards (HT bolts would suffice). I have collected samples of tested steel of defined tensile strength. Basically you make a sandwich of the steel in question, one of the balls as the filling and a standard on the other side. Clamp up the vice - measure the indent in each piece of steel (magnifying glass comes in handy) repeat until you find a match, or close.

As I said - you cannot measure the engineering of an anchor b y looking at it. Simply saying the shank has a large enough profile is a joke - shanks are made from a variety of steels, from 350 MPa to 1,300 MPa, there is a slight difference for 2 shanks of the same profile.

But I'm carping - who cares?

Jonathan

Jonathan

 

[GHA]

Imo this is a a You tube money making exercise.
Buy himself a electric windless next

With 5.2K subscribers??? Are you kidding? With fuel , camera kit etc he'll be lucky to break even, or hourly rate likely better working in McDonalds. Yet more negative armchair forum ranting which seems to be the norm these days on here, why not come back with something to add to opinions useful like Panope.

 

[dankilb]

I’m just watching Steve’s Epsilon test. This is the first of his videos I’ve seen (not otherwise in the market for a new anchor or even any anchoring, with a year plus left on our refit!)...

So, what’s the verdict as to the Epsilon’s apparent poor performance at even low angles of veer? Might this be off-set by the fact many owners might over-spec (weight wise) in reality given the price? I shouldn’t think that would completely change it’s holding characteristics under those test conditions, IMHO...

Or does the observation the anchor resets “like a dream” suggest perhaps it is designed to be set poorly (but sort itself out!)? Is it an anchor design aimed more at helping out those who might struggle to set successfully in the first place (e.g. charters), within Lewmar’s mass-market customer base?

Or are these simply artefacts of Steve’s methodology and it’s too early to say?

 

[bluerm166]

I have this done this quickly ( as I'm supposed to be fettling this morning ) but if we are to believe Lewmar's own view of the performance of the Epsilon then this appears to show a marginal improvement gained over the Delta.Comparisons with the Spade have fallen away.
Of course there may be some other gains ,such as a stronger shank.

 

[Neeves]

With 5.2K subscribers??? Are you kidding? With fuel , camera kit etc he'll be lucky to break even, or hourly rate likely better working in McDonalds. Yet more negative armchair forum ranting which seems to be the norm these days on here, why not come back with something to add to opinions useful like Panope.

When you establish yourself as a an expert, and more so when you seek and encourage financial support, you have a responsibility to the public. Frankly saying you don't know what steel is being used in the shank of a stainless steel anchor is unacceptable. In this case you telephone Lewmar and ask them and or you send them an email (if you are not told - you then have a doubt at the back of your mind). You then test the shank and confirm what you are told or not - and if the supplier does not confirm what quality is being used - you wonder why its a secret.. A stainless anchor with a 316 shank is an accident waiting to happen. It would take, at most 30 minutes, to conduct a non destructive test to confirm the steel of a stainless anchor.

I would direct members to check the Mantus M2 video at the end of which Steve makes a particular mention of the generosity of a contributor. I hope a contribution sufficient tp merit mention is indicative of altruism of the sailing community, the customer base..

Classification Societies only allow a small reduction in the weight, 30%, of a SHHP (what Lewmar has said is the categorisation of the Epsilon) anchor over a Delta, a HHP anchor. Lewmar would be very brave (if not fool hardy) to recommend outside the sizings recommended by the Classification Societies,

Stay safe, take care

Jonathan

 

[Mr Cassandra]

With 5.2K subscribers??? Are you kidding? With fuel , camera kit etc he'll be lucky to break even, or hourly rate likely better working in McDonalds. Yet more negative armchair forum ranting which seems to be the norm these days on here, why not come back with something to add to opinions useful like Panope.

I have over thirty experience at sea yachts , if you think mock up launchers made of wood and trying to bend straight a Steel shank with 3x2 informative ,perhaps its time for you to get out of your armchair .And personally I do not think I find anything to useful in Panope videos other than entertainment.

And if someone has a different opinion to you ,do you consider that ranting ?

 

[GHA]

I have over thirty experience at sea yachts , if you think mock up launchers made of wood and trying to bend straight a Steel shank with 3x2 informative ,perhaps its time for you to get out of your armchair .And personally I do not think I find anything to useful in Panope videos other than entertainment.

And if someone has a different opinion to you ,do you consider that ranting ?

5.2k subscribers on youtube and you think he's in it for the money? Not a clue, have you. And bringing nothing of use to anyone, just negativity .

 

[Neeves]

I’m just watching Steve’s Epsilon test. This is the first of his videos I’ve seen (not otherwise in the market for a new anchor or even any anchoring, with a year plus left on our refit!)...

So, what’s the verdict as to the Epsilon’s apparent poor performance at even low angles of veer? Might this be off-set by the fact many owners might over-spec (weight wise) in reality given the price? I shouldn’t think that would completely change it’s holding characteristics under those test conditions, IMHO...

Or does the observation the anchor resets “like a dream” suggest perhaps it is designed to be set poorly (but sort itself out!)? Is it an anchor design aimed more at helping out those who might struggle to set successfully in the first place (e.g. charters), within Lewmar’s mass-market customer base?

Or are these simply artefacts of Steve’s methodology and it’s too early to say?

You have a year left on your refit - simply wait and catch up on developments nearer the time.

Large anchors are meant to be 'copies' of small anchors and performance should be similar.

BUT

This assumes they are set equally, or commensurate with their size. So if you bury all the fluke of the small anchor and using more power bury all the fluke of the large anchor you would then expect them to perform similarly. This is part of the basis of SHHP awarded by Classification Society.

HOWEVER

If you oversize your anchor and you normally power set under full, or near full, revs then you will not set a larger anchor so deeply and I would not expect it to perform so well. Obviously if the wind picks up the larger anchor will set more deeply but then so would the small one. Shear strength increases with the square of depth - the deeper you can set your anchor - the more secure it will be.

Just because a larger anchor (of the same design as a smaller one) has a higher potential hold the a actual hold developed is contingent on engine size or windage of the yacht - and they are both fixed. Consequently the hold of a small anchor and a larger anchor deployed from the same yacht will be identical.

Jonathan

 

[Mr Cassandra]

5.2k subscribers on youtube and you think he's in it for the money? Not a clue, have you. And bringing nothing of use to anyone, just negativity .

Perhaps if he was able to provide technicality correct information he would get more than 5000 gullible subscribers

 

[Robih]

Perhaps if he was able to provide technicality correct information he would get more than 5000 gullible subscribers

I am offended by your post, I am a subscriber to Steve's channel but do not consider myself gullible. If you are to rant and make offensive remarks, and thereby inherent claims of superior knowledge, then I suggest that while you do that you also check that you can spell.

 

[Mr Cassandra]

I am offended by your post, I am a subscriber to Steve's channel but do not consider myself gullible. If you are to rant and make offensive remarks, and thereby inherent claims of superior knowledge, then I suggest that while you do that you also check that you can spell.

Okay, offended of West Scotland . Please share with us all the information you can rely on and trust from these videos...? Knowing that you cannot bend anything straight is not a claim of superior knowledge. Its called common sense.
Again the word rant ,best to look in the mirror to see a ranter.

 

[Robih]

Okay, offended of West Scotland . Please share with us all the information you can rely on and trust from these videos...? Knowing that you cannot bend anything straight is not a claim of superior knowledge. Its called common sense.
Again the word rant ,best to look in the mirror to see a ranter.

I made no reference to any of the information being either reliable or trustworthy. I referred to you being offensive.