Epsilon Anchors infos

[jaba]

If nothing else, extra competition will be good for consumers, hopefully the extra competition will drive down prices and will help point the way for future developments and refinements. Despite very rapid developments in recent years, the goal of the perfect anchor is still a long way from reality.

True. I notice that the retail price of Spades in my country has dropped by 20-30 % since I last checked (September). No idea if it has to do with the arrival of Epsilons, which cost about half of a full-priced Spade. But...

 

[RupertW]

Finally I might change from my reliable workhorse Delta without new bow furniture.

 

[thinwater]

Noelex - you forgot the Viking anchor.

There is an undercurrent amongst some who monitor anchor sales that there is a belief amongst the public that an anchor, to be 'rated' and talked about - must have a roll bar.

Without a roll bar it surely cannot work

As proof - Neither the M2 nor Vulcan has hardly hit the public's imagination.

Lewmar might be suspected of pandering to their perception of public opinion.

Time will tell.

Jonathan

And the Excel.

I wonder how much anchor design is based on appearances and perception, and how much on function.

 

[alahol2]

I see from his latest Vid that Steve has got his hands on a Knox. That will be an interesting video (for we in the UK).

 

[KompetentKrew]

Hanse 400

My boat is the same length, so I shall follow this thread.

I need a new anchor before launch, and have halfway settled on the Epsilon.

 

[Neeves]

My boat is the same length, so I shall follow this thread.

I need a new anchor before launch, and have halfway settled on the Epsilon.

I suspect your thinking and conclusions will be common place, have little risk (its Lewmar) and will support sales even without further testing.

As prices for the Epsilon look 'interesting' anyone looking to buy a new anchor should be patient - if the prices advertised hold firm we are going to see some major discounting (as maybe already indicated by Jaba Post No 21).

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

As it is an anchor thread I thought I'd throw in some controversy. Some of us are confined to home - this will provide a diversion for you.

Steve aka Panope has provided an immense and unquestionably valuable service to the leisure marine industry.

But if ultimate hold is a valuable piece of data - Steve does not test for this perameter. Ultimate hold in itself will never be needed by an owner of an anchor (for a decent 15kg anchor Ultimate hold will be around 2,000kg) but if ultimate hold is also a measure of resistance to yawing - then its a critical piece of information. Similarly Steve does not test for anchor integrity - strength - and as has been shown in the past strength, or lack of strength, is important.

This was sent to me by a member here:

Safety at Sea: Surviving a Powerful Storm in the Med

It makes sobering reading. Anchors can be subject to loads higher than those many will experience (look at the tension needed to bend the hook) - and ultimate hold and strength will then be critical.

Hold appears to have been measured for Epsilon by Lewmar, as has a Proof Test been conducted - or it would not have been awarded a SHHP certification. I would not buy an anchor that has not been tested for ultimate hold and would recommend that others consider the same restrictions - we all bought Spade, Rocna, Excel, without video evidence (but with hold data and all are SHHP anchors) and the tests conducted historically, Voile et Voileurs and Sail etc, have stood us in good stead - nothing has changed.

Video and good photography has been shown to be very persuasive but not always a reflection of reality - there is something reassuring about repeatable numerical data.

This is not in any way to denigrate Steve's work - but its just part of a, much, larger picture.


Discuss.


Jonathan

 

[alahol2]

Well, Steve aka Panope is trying to organise a tug in order to perform ultimate hold tests on his anchors, according to his recent video. So maybe we won't need to wait too long...

 

[Robih]

Discuss.
Jonathan

Anchoring seems to be one of those subjects where practical reality is more valuable/influential than science and mathematics. The academic study has it's place but I'm more inclined to believe "show me the money" evidence. When push comes to shove it's about what design anchor is most effective at providing a secure hold in a wide range of seabed. The teccy bits - whether the specification of the steel is up to the job etc - I perhaps rather simply take as a given on the basis that a quality manufacturer will not be using monkey metal to make the shank. Hence what Panope does - hard in the field testing - I perceive as being highly valuable. But I do appreciate assurance that it's not a monkey metal shank!

 

[Neeves]

Without mentioning any names:

After the bendy shank saga you would think anyone and everyone who ventured into the world of anchor production would be cognisant of the background and the need for strength in the shank of an anchor. I was sent an anchor to test and using the 'ball bearing test' and comparing the shank of the test anchor against a set of standards I have collected I deemed that the anchor I received had a shank of about 350 MPa. Not wanting to discourage the manufacturer I pointed this out (I retain the correspondence) - but they were so sure of themselves that they were right and continued selling regardless. Later shanks bent, they had a new set of shanks made of higher strength steel and even though they knew they had new shanks on the high seas continued to sell shanks that I thought would not meet demands of strength. They had to replace all the old shanks. Since then flukes of the same anchor have also bent.

The combination of bent flukes and bent shanks is not a good omen.

I'd say your expectations are the ideal but evidence says you are optimistic.

Now - as far as I am aware shanks were replaced free of charge - but you do have to wonder at the thought processes that allowed the mild steel shanks to be used at all. And further question how they could continue sales knowing stronger replacement shanks were on the high seas. I was appalled when I realised the latter - maybe I'm too black and white.

A simple Proof Test would have shown the weakness of the shank.


Panope's testing is hard work and develops good, if not excellent, results - but that's not the whole story - which Steve accepts - as he intends conducting holding capacity tests with a tug. I'm not sure he appreciates what he is letting himself in for - its hard work. Steve has already realised its a all a major commitment - and is trying to recoup some of his costs. He is going to have further costs if he conducts holding capacity tests as he really needs to conduct 5 pulls for each anchor and then pull all the anchors in the same seabed using the same rode at the same scope.......I wish him well

Jonathan

 

[jaba]

Update re: Epsilon
I wrote to Lewmar Technical Support. Here's their answer:
"As stated before it’s in the final stages of the Lloyds approval proses, meaning until its completed there is very limited information. Once completed all information will be available"

 

[thinwater]

Anchoring seems to be one of those subjects where practical reality is more valuable/influential than science and mathematics....\QUOTE]

Since good science is about good observation... they are the same thing. When the "science" or math deviate from what we see in the field, we know that we have an opportunity to improve our understanding, because it does not mean that the math was wrong (it cannot be), but that we didn't understand what questions to ask, or we asked them in the wrong way.

The most common mistakes in applying a single simple straight line pull test to anchoring are:

• Variable bottoms. Holding capacity can vary by 10x, and there is also the matter of fouling on junk and how anchors respond to that.
• Boat movement. Combination of surging and yawing can increase the force by 2-3x and yawing can reduce holding by 2-4x. And different anchor respond differently.
• Rodes. Much like yawing. Good catenary and/or nylon rode or snubber will lower the load 3-4x.

And these are the same problems with applying experience. Did the sailor really know his situation (measure the forces, the yaw angle, and dig in the bottom?) and did he report EVERYTHING about it? Think about how long it took for practical experience with roll bar anchors to reveal problems with fouling and reset that Neeves and other testers reported 5-6 years earlier. He flipped anchors over with a sharp reset and reported that fouling was a problem.

With enough testing, the science becomes like a lot more experience, and the result pretty damn similar. They merge, but with a greater understanding.

Simple anchor tests (straight pull) don't tell us the full story. Fortress will win by a mile practically every time, but experience and more complete testing BOTH tell us that is not the full story. The science and math are, it seems, VERY complicated, which is why something as seemingly simple as a rock on a rope is still evolving.

Good science on a new anchor, like this, will require a lot of testing, on a lot of bottoms, pulling it in many different manners. We'll see.

 

[NormanS]

As it is an anchor thread I thought I'd throw in some controversy. Some of us are confined to home - this will provide a diversion for you.

Steve aka Panope has provided an immense and unquestionably valuable service to the leisure marine industry.

But if ultimate hold is a valuable piece of data - Steve does not test for this perameter. Ultimate hold in itself will never be needed by an owner of an anchor (for a decent 15kg anchor Ultimate hold will be around 2,000kg) but if ultimate hold is also a measure of resistance to yawing - then its a critical piece of information. Similarly Steve does not test for anchor integrity - strength - and as has been shown in the past strength, or lack of strength, is important.

This was sent to me by a member here:

Safety at Sea: Surviving a Powerful Storm in the Med

It makes sobering reading. Anchors can be subject to loads higher than those many will experience (look at the tension needed to bend the hook) - and ultimate hold and strength will then be critical.

Hold appears to have been measured for Epsilon by Lewmar, as has a Proof Test been conducted - or it would not have been awarded a SHHP certification. I would not buy an anchor that has not been tested for ultimate hold and would recommend that others consider the same restrictions - we all bought Spade, Rocna, Excel, without video evidence (but with hold data and all are SHHP anchors) and the tests conducted historically, Voile et Voileurs and Sail etc, have stood us in good stead - nothing has changed.

Video and good photography has been shown to be very persuasive but not always a reflection of reality - there is something reassuring about repeatable numerical data.

This is not in any way to denigrate Steve's work - but its just part of a, much, larger picture.


Discuss.


Jonathan

Jonathan, that's a fascinating link re being anchored in a storm in the Med. If I might make one small observation:- The snubbing link with the attachment points for two snubbers, looks to my eye, to be out of proportion. Obviously I have no idea of how thick the material is, so it's difficult to judge, but if all the load happened to be on one leg when yawing, there doesn't look as if there's much to stop the link from opening up. If I was making a link like that, it would have a lot more metal beyond the slot.
That's not to take anything away from a very readable, and true to life, account of what must have been quite a terrifying experience. Thanks for posting the link.

 

[thinwater]

Well, Steve aka Panope is trying to organise a tug in order to perform ultimate hold tests on his anchors, according to his recent video. So maybe we won't need to wait too long...

I'm not a fan of testing with tugs. It is far too easy to move the anchors during pull more than you intended. It's hard to place repeat tests in close geographic proximity. It is also very hard to tell when an anchor is still moving, very slowly, and when it is holding with zero movement. Pulling with a winch against a solid anchor is far more controllable. You just need a BIG fluke anchor and a strong winch.

I hope he does some at long scope. I often feel we overemphisize scope so short only a fool would use it. The characteristics that make for good short scope holding are not necessarily best overall. I can think of at least one traditionally top anchor that is not very good at short scope, but still has a reputation of being one of the very best overall.

I do like his reset tests VERY much, though I would run them at longer scope.

But I'm sure he'll have a good protecole.

 

[Neeves]

Jonathan, that's a fascinating link re being anchored in a storm in the Med. If I might make one small observation:- The snubbing link with the attachment points for two snubbers, looks to my eye, to be out of proportion. Obviously I have no idea of how thick the material is, so it's difficult to judge, but if all the load happened to be on one leg when yawing, there doesn't look as if there's much to stop the link from opening up. If I was making a link like that, it would have a lot more metal beyond the slot.
That's not to take anything away from a very readable, and true to life, account of what must have been quite a terrifying experience. Thanks for posting the link.

Norman,

My thoughts exactly.

I had a slightly different take - one advantage of a bridle is you have 2 arms and if one fails you still have the remaining arm holding the yacht, albeit at a dangerous angle. At that dangerous angle I then came to the same conclusion as you the link would open up. As you say it needs, much, more metal beyond the end of the slot. I also thought the slot too short, as the chain might easily fall out. We have a similar bridle plate - ours is made from 2205 duplex stainless and is 10mm thick, and has more metal beyond the slot. Part of the article does underline that hooks need to be pretty robust, as one of their problems was that the Witchard snubber hook failed, completely. The article also underlined that you cannot rely on your snubber, for a variety of reasons, and you need a fall back. We have a completely independent chain lock, in our case a hook from the lifting industry on a short dyneema strop attached to a strong point.

Its easy to offer advice in hindsight but there were a number of issues, like why was the dinghy hanging if they knew squalls were forecast.

We carry goggles - but they are not stored with our emergency anchoring gear! It had never crossed my mind.

One positive factor - despite all that went on their CQR did actually do what it was meant to do.

It was a decidedly chilling and sobering read.

Jonathan

 

[Mais78]

Still no news on the Epsilon?

 

[NormanS]

Still no news on the Epsilon?

It's yet another anchor. ?

 

[Poey50]

Still no news on the Epsilon?

See the current 'Rocna prices' thread.

 

[jaba]

canceled
reason: video already posted in other thread.
Anyhow: in Panope test Epsilon disappoints

 

[Neeves]

canceled
reason: video already posted in other thread.
Anyhow: in Panope test Epsilon disappoints

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

Jonathan