Epsilon Anchors infos

[Neeves]

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

As I said it is refreshing to know that some in the market place are altruistic.

Jonathan

 

[Mr Cassandra]

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

To whom.? It it now offensive to take a difference slant on something that is offered as evidence of constructive testing , or do you feel a little silly in defending such unscientific rubbish , Testing with bits of string and lengths of 3x2

 

[bluerm166]

Large anchors will develop a greater hold than a smaller anchor,so beyond the point at which the smaller anchor ploughs out,when when put to the test.Seems to me that is what counts.

 

[thinwater]

So funny. There was a time in my career (more than 30 years of engineering and sailing) where I was actively involved in developing test protocols for fluids in the car you drive (the US ASTM runs the programs for many UK standards, since this eliminates duplication of effort). It was agonizing and very, very expensive. For example, a test standard for long-life antifreeze has YET to be developed, because accelerated tests that accurately mimic real world performance have proven elusive. When you buy a long-life coolant for your car, it passes many tests, but you are only taking the word of the maker that it is good enough to be called long-life, since there is no such standard. And that is a simpler problem with 1000 times as much money being thrown at it.

A test must be:

• Repeatable. Given the variability of seabeds, and in comparison with testing others have done, his run-to-run repeatability seems reasonable. Since run-to-run data can vary by 30%, depending on rocks, weeds and dumb luck, precition comparison is impossible. Forget it. All you can get is trends. You could test in perfect sand and reduce the variability... but is that realistic? Probably not. I do know that most of his result compare well with things I have done... and some are very, very different, and I'm not sure why. I think it related to a difference in rate of pull (motor vs. winch). Which is correct: high speed, as though you dropped anchor in a storm or the anchor had to suddenly reset, or as if the weather gradually increased and veered, over hours? Maybe both, so does that mean we need to pull tests? Which one is right? Maybe both, which is at odds with...
• Be practical. Cost matters and timeliness matters. There is no point in creating a test that is too expensive to run. Since all independent anchor testers (and frankly, the manufacturers too) are on a shoe string budget compared to major industries, bits of wood and string may be the best answer. For example, I have not studied the self-launching aspect of his testing, but I would not criticize that the test stand was made from wood unless I could show that materially affect the results, which I doubt it did. Every roller is different, and clearly, the roller could be optimized for a specific anchor, to the detriment of others. It's the sort of test where you can only show trends. His pull testing also makes compromises, but remember, there is no agreed upon standard. He could test, as Lloyds and others do, by pulling against a fixed anchor in a fixed direction; it might be better in some ways, but it would take a lot longer.
• Reflect real-world observations. For example, in the real world, X motor oil performs better than Y in side-by-side fleet testing, and it also performs better in the lab, in the same general ways. Regarding anchors, can we replicate failures that are reported in the field? In this case, since failures are very rare and never well documented, we can hardly know. In engine coolant testing, one of the tricks is to contaminate the coolant with salt and other things to accelerate corrosion. But add enough salt and all the coolants fail, and they fail in ways they don't fail in the field. What scope should we test at? Personally, I do not like short scope testing, since I have found the results more variable. But some say it is important. Is his veer or reversal too abrupt? Who can say? Anchors do come loose and need to reset, but I've only seen it happen when diving a few times, and the circumstance was contrived (intentionally set in a direction different from the wind).

Panope gives his opinions. He says they are his opinions. People take them as fact because he does videos and accepts donations, or because he presents them as declarative statements. Magazines report results, but you can bet they contain opinions. If he reported reems of numerical data, rather than fun-to-watch videos, would anyone read it? Probably not.

I look at the videos as data, that I can interpret according to my own understanding. If I start to critique his work, I immediately realize that what I would like to see done is unaffordable. So I accept it as a very good effort.

And at the end of the day, it all depends on the soil where the anchor landed.

---

Rock climbers can pick between many brands of rock anchors, all different in design. You know which one holds best in a fall? The one that was skillfully placed. So I write about rigging (the effects of scope, rode, snubbers, yawing, time, interactions, and other variables) and not testing of specific anchor brands when I can avoid it. Brand comparisons with so much test variability gives me a headache. I could anchor quite happily with any of the anchors he has tested (excepting fisherman's), but I would want my choice of rode, snubbers, and two anchors available.

 

[Mr Cassandra]

Thinwater, I am offended that you have a come to different conclusion , than that of mine.
..
Looking at his wall there must be thousand of dollars worth of anchors hanging there .so there must be a little money coming in

Signed.
Disgusted from Greece.?
.
.

Teasing ,?

 

[Bouba]

So funny. There was a time in my career (more than 30 years of engineering and sailing) where I was actively involved in developing test protocols for fluids in the car you drive (the US ASTM runs the programs for many UK standards, since this eliminates duplication of effort). It was agonizing and very, very expensive. For example, a test standard for long-life antifreeze has YET to be developed, because accelerated tests that accurately mimic real world performance have proven elusive. When you buy a long-life coolant for your car, it passes many tests, but you are only taking the word of the maker that it is good enough to be called long-life, since there is no such standard. And that is a simpler problem with 1000 times as much money being thrown at it.

A test must be:

• Repeatable. Given the variability of seabeds, and in comparison with testing others have done, his run-to-run repeatability seems reasonable. Since run-to-run data can vary by 30%, depending on rocks, weeds and dumb luck, precition comparison is impossible. Forget it. All you can get is trends. You could test in perfect sand and reduce the variability... but is that realistic? Probably not. I do know that most of his result compare well with things I have done... and some are very, very different, and I'm not sure why. I think it related to a difference in rate of pull (motor vs. winch). Which is correct: high speed, as though you dropped anchor in a storm or the anchor had to suddenly reset, or as if the weather gradually increased and veered, over hours? Maybe both, so does that mean we need to pull tests? Which one is right? Maybe both, which is at odds with...
• Be practical. Cost matters and timeliness matters. There is no point in creating a test that is too expensive to run. Since all independent anchor testers (and frankly, the manufacturers too) are on a shoe string budget compared to major industries, bits of wood and string may be the best answer. For example, I have not studied the self-launching aspect of his testing, but I would not criticize that the test stand was made from wood unless I could show that materially affect the results, which I doubt it did. Every roller is different, and clearly, the roller could be optimized for a specific anchor, to the detriment of others. It's the sort of test where you can only show trends. His pull testing also makes compromises, but remember, there is no agreed upon standard. He could test, as Lloyds and others do, by pulling against a fixed anchor in a fixed direction; it might be better in some ways, but it would take a lot longer.
• Reflect real-world observations. For example, in the real world, X motor oil performs better than Y in side-by-side fleet testing, and it also performs better in the lab, in the same general ways. Regarding anchors, can we replicate failures that are reported in the field? In this case, since failures are very rare and never well documented, we can hardly know. In engine coolant testing, one of the tricks is to contaminate the coolant with salt and other things to accelerate corrosion. But add enough salt and all the coolants fail, and they fail in ways they don't fail in the field. What scope should we test at? Personally, I do not like short scope testing, since I have found the results more variable. But some say it is important. Is his veer or reversal too abrupt? Who can say? Anchors do come loose and need to reset, but I've only seen it happen when diving a few times, and the circumstance was contrived (intentionally set in a direction different from the wind).

Panope gives his opinions. He says they are his opinions. People take them as fact because he does videos and accepts donations, or because he presents them as declarative statements. Magazines report results, but you can bet they contain opinions. If he reported reems of numerical data, rather than fun-to-watch videos, would anyone read it? Probably not.

I look at the videos as data, that I can interpret according to my own understanding. If I start to critique his work, I immediately realize that what I would like to see done is unaffordable. So I accept it as a very good effort.

And at the end of the day, it all depends on the soil where the anchor landed.

I agree, I get most of my anchor knowledge from people with sail boats, does that mean it doesn’t apply to motorboats. And, whereas you don’t like short scope, it’s my favorite bit, because that is applicable to busy Med anchorages.
There is simply no way to test every anchor in a way that is relevant to every boater. But Panope does at least try. Unfortunately his greatest achievement seems to be putting the wind up people. And why o why does he hate Rochas?
But I am very grateful to him for debunking the Epsilon myth ?

 

[Neeves]

Large anchors will develop a greater hold than a smaller anchor,so beyond the point at which the smaller anchor ploughs out,when when put to the test.Seems to me that is what counts.

My comments relate to modern anchors.

True if the anchor is ridiculously small. But in clean sand a 15kg anchor with an ability to apply unlimited tension it will not pull out until a tension of about 2,000kg is achieved. No yacht for which a 15kg anchor is recommended will ever develop a tension in the rode of 2,000kg. I quote clean sand for 2 reasons - its a common and desirable seabed which everyone recognises and other seabeds are difficult to define, density of weed, viscosity of mud etc.

If we assume that the tension in the rode is a maximum of 1,000kg, which is pretty high (or large) then an approporatly sized anchor and one, say, 2 sizes bigger will develop a hold of 1,000kgs. There is no evidence that if the yacht then starts to yaw that the bigger anchor will be more reliable than the smaller one. In fact because the bigger one has a larger lever arm, its shank is both longer and higher - there is the thought that as both flukes are holding 1,000kg in a straight line then when you impose a longer lever arm on that same hold the longer lever arm will offer less resistance (and the bigger one will pluck out more easily). Its a bit like trying to bend a shank straight - its so much easier to bend a shank if you have a longer bit of wood .

The common catch phrase then is: But in difficult seabeds the bigger one will set more deeply, or better. There is no evidence for this either. The recommendation for weed is to use a Fishermans with a small fluke - suddenly this advice and practice is thrown out of the window - suddenly a bigger fluke anchor is better -- Really? You think a bigger anchor will be better in cobblestones - any evidence? In a hard seabed a smaller anchor will bury more easily - simply because it is smaller (think of digging in hard soil, which is easier to work with a big shovel or a small one). There is another catch phrase - but its better to have a big anchor at short scope - again, really. Have you ever seen any evidence? Even those who make these claims never have even any of their own evidence - where they have actually anchored at short scope, been secure and others round about on long scope and smaller anchors have all dragged.

If you will sleep better reliant on a big anchor, you go for it. But complacency does not make a good bedfellow.

Most people don't listen to the garbage spouted about bigger is better and simply buy an anchor of the recommended size. There is no evidence that any modern anchor, of the right size, has a propensity to drag greater than over sized ones. In a thread I established some years ago people who owned modern anchors did not admit to their anchors dragging, at all - big or small - and many will have had anchors of the correct size..

Find me any evidence, not hearsay - hard reputable evidence, that bigger anchors are better. Find me evidence that people with modern anchors of the recommended size have dragged their anchors yet yachts with oversized anchors of the same design and both using the same scope have not dragged.

If you read of people using small, undersized, Fortress one of the factors to always come through is the difficult they have on retrieval - because the anchor simply sets too deep. Use a bigger one and they are easier to retrieve - think about it a bit more! My thought is that Fortress oversize their sizing charts for this very reason.

Bigger is Better, rolls off the tongue, so many repeat the mantra - none have any hard evidence. Repetition does not make anything more true.

Now - Find me evidence and I'll alter my tune and beg forgiveness. Until some evidence turns up - if you want to waste your money, go for it - but until there is hard evidence please use your anchor alarm (and don't leave your yacht unattended when thunderstorms are forecast).

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan

edit

And on Panope and Epsilon - I find it very difficult to believe that Lewmar are not being honest with their Classification Society accreditation for the anchor. Not impossible but I do question the only 'independent' testing that has been completed. It is too large a contradiction. As with the rating for Rocna I'm uncomfortable. There maybe some design flaw in the Epsilon - as I've mentioned I've only seen pictures and it is very difficult to define performance from a picture (though people much more clever than me can make an analysis of engineering simply by looking). I don't write Epsilon off, yet - I'm just cautious. In the meantime there are plenty of other anchors out there, Kobra, Viking, Spade, Rocna, Excel , Ultra all of which you can buy today in the UK and have on your bow roller by the end of the week. None of them are perfect and the Panope videos do provide some background to their imperfections and what to look out for, Take a straight edge with you when you choose your Rocna!

I do question the methodology of the Panope tests, see Thinwater's post No 64 - is each test on each anchor done in the same way, are they repeatable? do the tests reflect real world experience? they are obviously practical - he does them. The fact he does them and they look spectacular and revealing does not mean they reflect real world experience.

If you look at the tests conducted in 2006 or the tests conducted by Fortress in Chesapeake Bay you will find they involved a lot of people, many of whom were independent, many of whom had been testing anchors for years (and a few had made a career from anchor testing and development) using a lot of kit - do you really think one man is offering the same unbiased, robust and professional approach? All credit to Steve, he is putting in the effort and he has opened up a whole new view of anchoring.

Some anchors are benefitting, some very popular anchors are, for whatever reason....not benefitting. I find this latter....thought provoking. I understand others will see this as carping - I put it down to an (un)healthy curiosity. Some years ago the flavour of the year was a thread on Cruisers Forum 'Pictures of Anchors', (there was a huge flaw in the analysis), now the flavour of the year is Videos of Anchors..... people were constantly linking the 'Picture' thread, now people are constantly linking the 'Video' thread - constant repetition does not make either thread more, OR LESS, correct. The danger now is that no-one is going to wade through 110 x 30 minute videos, no-one is going to look at the occasional summary video - people are going to look at the spreadsheets - and make a decision. The influence of these spreadsheets is going to be immense - it may break or make an anchor company. Having your anchor at the top of the list, or near the top, is going to be advantageous. I wonder how you can influence the location of your anchor on the spread sheet.

To the member here who suggested Steve is making sufficient money to buy those anchors - most, with very few exceptions were donated by the anchor maker or the distributors. This underlines the power of the videos - the manufacturers recognise the importance of the tests.

J

 

[thinwater]

I agree, I get most of my anchor knowledge from people with sail boats, does that mean it doesn’t apply to motorboats. And, whereas you don’t like short scope, it’s my favorite bit, because that is applicable to busy Med anchorages.
There is simply no way to test every anchor in a way that is relevant to every boater. But Panope does at least try. Unfortunately his greatest achievement seems to be putting the wind up people. And why o why does he hate Rochas?
But I am very grateful to him for debunking the Epsilon myth ?

Or did he debunk the Rocna myth? (Honestly, I don't know or or have a dog in the fight.)

I believe the greatest value is to demonstrate just how puzzling the whole thing is. They just don't always do what you expect.

 

[Mr Cassandra]

If a company such as Lewmar took umbrage with Panope for a unflattering test ,and sued him in a court of law ,as an expert J where in these tests could you support a defence?

I don't think you will find that I belive you can make a living off you tube with so few subscribers , in fact, not enough to return the 20 + anchors on the back wall.

The post I make are only to point out that IMO .the test are very Heath Robinson ish. And I resptfully suggest care taken on buying an Anchor on its results.
Do I have skin in the game ,no , 25 +years with various Delta on the bow and 2 with a Manson supreme .

 

[Neeves]

If a company such as Lewmar took umbrage with Panope for a unflattering test ,and sued him in a court of law ,as an expert J where in these tests could you support defence?

I don't think you will find that I belive you can make a living off you tube with so few subscribers , in fact, not enough to return the 20 + anchors on the wall back.

The post I make are only to point out that IMO .the test are very Heath Robinson ish. And I resptfully suggest care taken on buying an Anchor on its results.
Do I have skin in the game ,no , 25 +years with various Delta on the bow and 2 with a Manson supreme .

I don't think there is requirement to return any of the anchors.

I think this is an excellent summary

quote:

The post I make are only to point out that IMO .the test are very Heath Robinson ish. And I resptfully suggest care taken on buying an Anchor on its results.

unquote

I cannot comment on the testing conducted on the Epsilon (and other anchors, but see below on robust testing) other than I simply cannot believe that it has been tested and found not to have a similar hold in a straight line pull for the same weight of anchor - as Spade, Excel, Supreme, Ultra, Rocna. There is thus 'something' wrong (its either Lewmar and Lloyds or Steve aka Panope). In terms of an indefensible position - if the assertions I suggest in the other thread Panope and Rocna are correct - it is all becoming inexcusable. The various changes in the manufacture of Rocna are very well documented (because of the bendy shanks and the RINA certification) - there is detail in a number of sailing magazines. Not to have noticed that the fluke tested was not cast (if that is the case) and or that it is cast, but now cast in two, or more, parts) is inexcusable. If you are testing an anchor its something you would comment on. If it turns out to be a 10 year old model then it would be very difficult to support any defense (and would make any case Lewmar consider so much simpler).

If my assertions are correct then I have to carp a bit more and wonder what else has been missed, that is pertinent, that might question some of the tests, test protocols and results.

When you set yourself up, or become known as, an expert and solicit financial support you have responsibilities.

Until someone confirms that Rocna product has changed its all looking very sloppy. I hope to be proved wrong.

A final comment on testing:

After I test and submit an article on the test the edited article, during which it enjoys peer review, is submitted to the manufacturer (or if it involves more than one manufacturer they are able too peruse 'their' bit). In one such case (not anchors) the manufacturer said, emphatically, I was wrong we published (and be damned) and the manufacturer changed their specification in line with my results. In another article, on chain, I said that the product of the process being used had not been fully tested. The manufacturer was irate, harried both the publisher and me (personally) and threatened to sue (and having an international manufacturer threatening to sue me was - a worry). The publisher submitted my test protocol and results - the manufacturer backed off. It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth - and I am grateful for the confidence shown in me by the publishers (different publishers). If Steve can show that his tests are robust - he has no issues, I suspect he cannot show they are robust as, for example, he cannot show that the yaws are all conducted at the same speed, same seabed, same amount of slack chain, same initial hold.

Video (and/or still photography) might be considered entertaining and educational, because the 'evidence' has never been seen and with the comments - looks so valid. It is influencing purchase decisions but there may be bias and influence - it is right to question - to remind - there are responsibilities.

rtboss1' comment is ever so pertinent.

As I have said - I don't reject the Epsilon (nor the use of Rocna - but use with knowledge) - I reserve judgement.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

It merits note, a purely personal observation (possible not shared by many)

What is one of the best known yachting, marine brands?

I forgot the dates

But 10 years ago, at the beginning or in the middle of the brouhaha and especially toward the end who had heard of CMP? Did anyone know then what product has the band name Martyr or Titan? Does anyone know now?

Rocna to me, 10 years ago was dead in the water - and sinking fast.

CMP rescued them (they own both Martyr (anodes) and Titan (chain and shackles))

There is no such thing as bad advertising.

Rocna came out of the debacle and now is smelling of roses. There is no evidence to pin on the Smiths that they knew anything of the shenanigans - but one would suppose CMP won them cheaply (and good for them - it seems to have worked out).

The Brouhaha appears to have done Rocna no harm - in fact their status has been enhanced, no-one in America knows what a Kobra is, Spade languishes, SARCA has been around since the early 1990s.

I'm in no way suggesting Epsilon (or Rocna_ or to be more focussed Lewmar or CMP) are orchestrating anything - but Rocna did set an example (and no-one really mention Mantus now).

Jonathan

 

[Mr Cassandra]

I am just musing , If say an International company could prove that videos and allegedly unsubstantiated comment has caused it damages.
Would those who supported these comments financially via a subscription be libel also. ?

 

[Mr Cassandra]

Looks like I killed this thread

 

[Neeves]

Looks like I killed this thread

Maybe, maybe not.

I simply did not have an answer, but I doubted that a supporter had any responsibility for anything said or done. Though if you were a supporter and you saw something or heard something with which you disagreed, or did not understand, I would think you might make your comments known, in this case to Steve.

Jonathan

 

[Bouba]

I am just musing , If say an International company could prove that videos and allegedly unsubstantiated comment has caused it damages.
Would those who supported these comments financially via a subscription be libel also. ?

Surely, if that were possible, Rocna would have sued by now??

 

[Bouba]

But, conversely, if my boat drags can I sue Lewmar for designing the Delta?‍(Ok, that was a for instance joke, I’m sure Deltas are wonderful ploughs)?

 

[penfold]

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

Not really, if he wanted a lot more subscribers and watchers there is a proven method; have a glamorous assistant in a swimsuit and make sure they feature in the freezeframe yootoob list the videos with.

 

[Neeves]

But, conversely, if my boat drags can I sue Lewmar for designing the Delta?‍(Ok, that was a for instance joke, I’m sure Deltas are wonderful ploughs)?

Lewmar did not design the Delta. The Delta was designed by Simpson Lawrence in the late 80's, by a team led by Gordon Lyall, when Lewmar as we know it was but a dream. The design was partially or wholly in response to the young upstart Peter Bruce who was whittling away at SL's market. Don't knock it - SL designed the original self launching shanks that also enabled the anchor to roll over such that the fluke addressed the seabed. The shank was obviously a success as if has been much copied most noticeably by Spade and more recently by Ultra and Vulcan. The Rocna shank is another copy. Correct me if I'm wrong but it was also the first serious attempt at using 'HT steels' in the shank. If success is measured in how many copied there are - then Delta must be one of the most successful leisure anchors (after Danforth).

We have much to thank Gordon Lyall for - but he is almost unknown. When I last heard from him he was based in SW Scotland sailing a catamaran out of one of the marinas, the location of which - I forget (not, but somewhere like Girvan).

Jonathan

 

[bluerm166]

Interesting to learn that the force arising from windage has a fixed value down under ,presumably based on 40 knots ,the figure employed in some manufacturers nominal tables .Unfortunately wind conditions are different here.
So yes,when I drop my anchor ,two sizes above the nominal weight suggested by the manfr. ,I am happy that in the precise combination of seabed efficiency where it lands,random stones,weed,changing wind strength and direction, waves and swell over a period it will more likely stay put than the minimum weight and size version.
So overall I am happy that my mild neurosis , in which the anchor drags (as has indeed occured in the past ),is better founded than your neurosis in which you worry that others will not listen to your cautions.

 

[Rappey]

He rates the excel as the best, yet the delta which doesnt seem that different is right near the bottom ?
Wandering around the Portsmouth marinas the delta seems way more popular than any other !