New anchor - Lewmar

[noelex]

Have they changed the rules for the SHHP? SHHP is/was was an anchor with a holding power at least four times an ordinary stockless anchor, an ordinary stockless anchor

You are correct in understanding that the SHHP standard is very low. It was designed for larger commercial vessels that may contemplate fitting an alternative, more modern anchor than the ordinary stockless anchor.

The holding requirement is only for four times the measurement reached by the same weight, very old fashioned, ordinary stockless anchor. This style of anchor is shown in the photo below and is a very inefficient design that has to be heavy for even modest holding power. Four times the holding power of the same weight anchor in this style is a very low standard.

So the standard sets a low bar in my view, but allows the manufacturers to attach a very impressive label that proclaims the anchor is certified as having “Super High Holding Power”. I think this label is misleading for an ordinary boat owner.

 

[Neeves]

Now an SHHP anchor must have the hold of 2 times an HHP anchor and an HHP anchor would include a CQR, Delta and Bruce (all genuine and previously tested). I understand that now the Classification Societies take a previously tested SHHP anchor, I think the first leisure anchor was Supreme, and to be awarded SHHP your anchor, for the same weight has to be as good as a Supreme. So though the original idea was 4 times a stockless - that has been dropped and the comparison is with an existing SHHP anchor. SHHP anchors now include Ultra, Spade, Excel, Fortress and Epsilon (and maybe Rocna).

The test must be conducted a number of times in each of, I recall, 3 different seabeds. The seabeds are chosen by the anchor maker - who also pays for all the testing, employing his own staff or sub-contractors. The CS simply 'supervise'.

Today its quite tough to be able to ensure your new anchor is better than a Supreme, Fortress, Ultra (you choose). If its not better - its money down the drain.

SHHP is not awarded only on the basis of hold. The manufacturing facilities must be approved and paper work is checked that the defined materials, say Bisplate 80 is actually used. You must use CS certified welders. If cast components are used the foundry is specifically assessed - CS are very sensitive to cast components. Anchors are also Proof Tested, for strength. Once you are certificated your premises and records are checked annually - for which you pay. Rocna came unstuck because their anchor was tested in NZ, based on NZ production, and they omitted (or forgot) to mention that they had started to use cast components when they moved to Shanghai.

What is reassuring is that an analysis of the anchors awarded SHHP roughly corresponds to the data produced by the 'yachting media' tests - that - in fact - the hold of those anchors awarded SHHP is about twice that of the previously assessed HHP anchors and that the SHHP anchors are similar in hold.

So though the certification is denigrated by some - its what independent tests have also found - now figure out that contradiction - especially as added together - its the only quantitative data we have.

None of this may be considered by some as very demanding (and it is certainly expensive) but its better than launching an anchor onto the market with no testing at all. The question might be - which manufacturer would launch an anchor with no hold data (why no data? surely if your anchor is good you would want to show excellence) and who would buy an anchor with no hold data? Sadly there are a lot of gullible people around and some others with the skill of snake oil salesmen.

Jonathan