latest anchor test

[Scotty_Tradewind]

Visibility is one problem, the other is that the sea bed can vary from site to site, so one anchor might find a soft patch and another might find a hard patch. Anchor 1 gets a good result anchor 2 doesn't, and it would be the luck of the draw which anchors set where and if anchor 2 had the site anchor 1 had the results would have been different.

We like to remove the "luck" and human element as much as possible when testing anything. But unfortunately with anchors there is no one way to test them, the same way there is with rope for example.

Agreed, but the more tests on the actual sea bed that could be done, then a pattern of results would become apparent, luck or no luck. E.g. certain French anchors in French tests may come out tops.... ONCE! But if repeated a few dozen times??

Filming below the water.... Having dived around English shores in the late 60's and if little regards viz has changed, then the camera would need to be attached to the anchor itself and on a very good day you may get some results, but not very often.

 

[Moodyjim]

There are sometimes other issues. We have a Rociner jobby on the Muddy in the Ionian which works pretty well off of the roller but the baby boat (Vertue) stows the anchor on the foredeck but hangs from a bow roller when deployed.The problem with sharp, hooked pointy ankers is damage to the bow when hauling it up (by hand) when it can rotate, swing etc. and jab the woodwork. As I haven't tried it yet perhaps other with tender hulls may like to comment?

 

[nickd]

a 25kg CQR on a lagoon 38 cat held us every night last week, set first time every time. Although bit difficult to retrieve when stuck between two rocks, which required a bit of ingenuity to replace the bow roller!

First picture shows four pathetic rivets that were supposed to hold the bow roller on (it was only a gentle tug!)

Second shows the new bow roller made entirely from driftwood

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

There are sometimes other issues. We have a Rociner jobby on the Muddy in the Ionian which works pretty well off of the roller but the baby boat (Vertue) stows the anchor on the foredeck but hangs from a bow roller when deployed.The problem with sharp, hooked pointy ankers is damage to the bow when hauling it up (by hand) when it can rotate, swing etc. and jab the woodwork. As I haven't tried it yet perhaps other with tender hulls may like to comment?

If the roller is a little further away this is unlikely to be such a problem.
On my last boat someone, before my ownership, had put a 'V' s/s 'strip' all the way down the pointy bit at the bow, from the roller to just below the waterline. It went only a couple of centimetres from the point along the hull but that did help in protecting the pointy bit of the topside.
I've also seen some s/s plates put near the roller at the bow to protect gel.
I found my old plough was less controllable than my Rocna.
My latest Rocna is now a pain to get onto the roller on this boat as a bowsprit is in the way with a martingale dropping below it.

 

[aluijten]

a 25kg CQR on a lagoon 38 cat held us every night last week, set first time every time. Although bit difficult to retrieve when stuck between two rocks, which required a bit of ingenuity to replace the bow roller!

First picture shows four pathetic rivets that were supposed to hold the bow roller on (it was only a gentle tug!)

Second shows the new bow roller made entirely from driftwood

Uhhh, I may be longsighted but I don't think that is a CQR anchor.

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

Uhhh, I may be longsighted but I don't think that is a CQR anchor.

+1

 

[nickd]

Uhhh, I may be longsighted but I don't think that is a CQR anchor.

I'm no expert but assumed it was a CQR because it was hinged and it should have read 15kg not 25

 

[Boo2]

2. The Hydrobubble came top or near the top in one test, never came near it again.

Actually, the Hydrobubble did quite well in 3 of the tests I've found in my (web) rovings :

Motorboats Monthly May 07 MBM_Rightpick.pdf

Practical Sailor April 06 PracticalSailor-April06.pdf

and

Yachting Monthly 2006 "[Link removed - breach of copyright by the linked site]"

I even went as far as looking for one, but AFAIK they've gone pointy bits up. I'm probably going to get a Manson Supreme but am trying to decide between the 15kg and 20kg versions...

Boo2

 

[Boo2]

Meanwhile, those of us with a Spade just sit here feeling unbearably smug!

Those tippy-forwardy bits at the front of the roller, are they retro-fitted ? I think my bow roller is too short for a modern anchor but if I could get hold of an extension then I could mount it in place of the current roller and get an MS on. Anyone know who sells them ?

Thanks,

Boo2

 

[Poignard]

And if Eric Hiscock was around to try out the new generation of anchors, what conclusions might he have come to?
I wonder if he would have stuck to his original equipment just because it was there, or if he would have made his own assessments along with listening to others.

Well we can't know what he would have done but here is nothing to indicate that he was unwilling to make use of new technology. In fact the CQR was new technology when he wrote 'Cruising Under Sail' and he was quite happy to use Brookes and Gatehouse's electronics.

But I think his point about the minimum desirable weight for anchors makes sense. Having a lightweight anchor with a sharp point may be an acceptable substitute for weight but I am not convinced enough to scrap my existing 35lb CQR (which works perfectly well)and buy a Rocna. I do assure you that I don't heave 35lb of steel around with a 70-year old back for fun, or to make a point.

Seems to me that anchor development is following a law of diminishing returns. You can spend a lot more money for a little more benefit. That might be worthwhile if you're pushing things to the limit and facing willie-waws, pamperos and hurricanes in remote parts of the world but for the ordinary joe pottering around the UK, Channel Islands and Brittany, the CQR does well enough.

 

[bluedragon]

Agreed, but the more tests on the actual sea bed that could be done, then a pattern of results would become apparent, luck or no luck. E.g. certain French anchors in French tests may come out tops.... ONCE! But if repeated a few dozen times??

Filming below the water.... Having dived around English shores in the late 60's and if little regards viz has changed, then the camera would need to be attached to the anchor itself and on a very good day you may get some results, but not very often.

It doesn't need to be deep. The water around Devon/Cornwall and West Wales for example is remarkably clear in many areas.

As for Snooks' comment about anchors finding soft spots, etc, well that's true for all anchor tests, not just visual ones. C'mon YBW mags, let's move forward and get some video tests done...no excuses!! If you can crash test boats I'm sure you could manage to get a diver down whilst setting an anchor...Do it in the Med or Caribbean if you want settled conditions. Doesn't have to be the UK.

 

[snooks]

Do it in the Med or Caribbean if you want settled conditions. Doesn't have to be the UK.

Then you get results for anchors that work in the med or carribbean, not the UK

Also you'd need two divers, one for video, one for stills. Then you'd have to get all the anchors to where you want them tested, then what size/price do we test etc etc etc

As someone said on this thread, these anchors have been tested before, is there any reason for another anchor test?

Oh and it was Yachting Monthly that crashed the boat, not YBW

YBW is the website where the individual IPC marine titles have their own individual websites

 

[bluedragon]

I did actually say YBW "mags"...but I'd hoped (maybe still hope) that there might be a completely different approach to this whole topic in the future. I accept you don't agree, but maybe others will consider the idea (perhaps one of the US or European magazines).

 

[vyv_cox]

Actually, the Hydrobubble did quite well in 3 of the tests I've found in my (web) rovings :

Motorboats Monthly May 07 MBM_Rightpick.pdf

Practical Sailor April 06 PracticalSailor-April06.pdf

and

Yachting Monthly 2006 "[Link removed - breach of copyright by the linked site]"

I even went as far as looking for one, but AFAIK they've gone pointy bits up. I'm probably going to get a Manson Supreme but am trying to decide between the 15kg and 20kg versions...

Boo2

Two of those contain the same test data but written independently. You will find the same one on West Marine's site somewhere. I hadn't come across the Practical Sailor one before, so thanks for that.

 

[ChrisE]

I don't have any evidence to support this theory, but reading hundreds of anchor threads on many forums suggests that heavier CQRs and Bruces perform far better than the lighter ones, under, say, 35 lb. Many of the owners who swear by theirs, quoting months of anchoring in serious winds, turn out to have bigger boats with heavier anchors, and often with oversized chain.

I agree that this would be good. A pity more time and money isn't available to those testing to have done so. However, I doubt if the viz on the bottom around many of our anchorages would have let you see much.

If you really believe that viz would make a difference then buy an underwater camera from Maplins for about £100. I have one for my fishing boat to see the bottom you could do the same for an anchorage. Me? I'm happy with my Spare which just works...

 

[snooks]

I accept you don't agree, but maybe others will consider the idea (perhaps one of the US or European magazines).

I'm not the editor, and it's what they say that goes

 

[ChrisE]

If you really believe that viz would make a difference then buy an underwater camera from Maplins for about £100. I have one for my fishing boat to see the bottom you could do the same for an anchorage. Me? I'm happy with my Spare which just works...

For Spare read Spade, damn these auto-correct phones

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

What we see from some other tests, the Practical Sailor one as an example, is that they tested on long and short scopes.
Surely that is an important aspect of the testing along with the rode going up to a boat at an angle to the sea bed, that is completely missed out of Professor Knoxs testing. Therefore 'in the field' can we see any absolute and meaningful conclusion to his tests at all?

 

[Twister_Ken]

Those tippy-forwardy bits at the front of the roller, are they retro-fitted ? I think my bow roller is too short for a modern anchor but if I could get hold of an extension then I could mount it in place of the current roller and get an MS on. Anyone know who sells them ?

Thanks,

Boo2

Bow roller was fitted in the UK after the boat arrived from Sweden with a naked bow (as was anticipated). So there's someone not far from the Hamble who can make and fit them. Want me to ask who?

 

[pcatterall]

"I would be far more convinced by video shots showing the ease or otherwise of our anchor choices actually digging into various seabeds. That's pretty rare footage in my experience (unless somebody tells me otherwise)...and THAT'S what PBO/YM should be doing IMO, not more load cell tests which I assume is what's being done here"

perhaps we should get the article published here!!
The tests covered how the different anchors set from an 'as dropped' position on the sea bed including when in water ( a shallow pool).
Like in another post I was intrigued to see that the spade ( upright V) was so much better than the CQR ( inverted V?) I will try the spoon in sugar test!
Also that the CQR with its hinge was less effective than the ( similar shape?) Delta.
I also didnt like the fact that the test pulls were with the pull parrallel to the sea bed which assumes that there is no upward angle at all.