Panope Vid No 138

[Poey50]

If his historic seabeds (plural) are uncommon that makes roughly 60-100 hours of test video, ignoring the time invested in editing, invalid and his spread sheets a complete waste of time. It also suggests he did not know his seabeds were uncommon which might be a bigger problem - make of that what you like.

Jonathan

I can't remember which video, but in one he speculates on this question of how typical his standard seabeds are and is open to the possibility of different results being found elsewhere. His latest video appears to bear this out.

 

[Yooha83]

I do not have sufficient spare time to watch videos whose accuracy I doubt. There have been many anchor tests that find the performance of Manson and Rocna anchors to be very similar.

Dear @vyv_cox Interesting, to say the least, if not presumptuous to find the time to comment on a video that I claim to not watch for lack of free time, but at the same time to suggest a possible underlying secret agenda. There would have to be at least sources or solid evidence for such a drastic assumption that go beyond hearsay. Furthermore, no sources or evidence have been provided by you that the Manson Supreme performs similarly to the Rocna in Panope's tests of the 22 pound anchor (topic of this thread) or at least any Panope video. I kindly ask you to provide them or refrain from making such speculative and fact-free statements in the future. Using other anchor tests as arguments without naming them and presenting concrete results and relating them to the topic of the thread Video 138 are offtopic. This is also a matter of accuracy and fair conduct.

 

[Yooha83]

You suggest Rocna does well in video 138, this does not appear to be reflected, at all, in the summary spreadsheet nor bar graph at the end of the video - and as I have mentioned - no-one is going to watch 138 videos before investing in a new anchor - they will simply look at the summary sheet.

Dear @Neeves I'm not accusing you of anything, but I think you're wrong. Let me help you see it. Unfortunately I cannot post screenshots/pictures so skip to minute 32:21 for the test location Echo bay, Sucia Island and look at the relevant columns in the performance chart "summary spreadsheet" as you call it minute 33:05. Both columns on the right Sucia Is. display a score 5=best performance for the 22lbs Rocna anchor. No other anchor was awarded this score in this seabed
-> winner = rocna
now skip to minute 34:08 for the "bar graph", look at the dark blue bars and you will find the highest bar with the 22lbs rocna = winner in this seabed.

"..does not appear to be reflected, at all.." - in my eyes, not at all, it is very obvious. Hope it helped see the facts.

Have a nice day!
Y

 

[Neeves]

Dear @vyv_cox Interesting, to say the least, if not presumptuous to find the time to comment on a video that I claim to not watch for lack of free time, but at the same time to suggest a possible underlying secret agenda. There would have to be at least sources or solid evidence for such a drastic assumption that go beyond hearsay. Furthermore, no sources or evidence have been provided by you that the Manson Supreme performs similarly to the Rocna in Panope's tests of the 22 pound anchor (topic of this thread) or at least any Panope video. I kindly ask you to provide them or refrain from making such speculative and fact-free statements in the future. Using other anchor tests as arguments without naming them and presenting concrete results and relating them to the topic of the thread Video 138 are offtopic. This is also a matter of accuracy and fair conduct.

One swallow does not make a summer.

Maybe the fact that both Lloyds and Rina found both anchors (Rocna and Manson's Supreme) to offer the same hold, is sufficient. The hold of both anchors and Spade was found to be twice that of a CQR. But maybe hold does not matter any more - after many decades of acceptance by all the yachting press, Yachting Monthly, Sail, Practical Boat Owner, Voile et Voileurs, Practical Sailor, Segeln and all the Classification Societies. I don't think Classification Society testing would be described as hearsay.

The protocols for the CS tests are similar, if not identical across the Classification Societies. If a range of sizes are to be approved at least 2 sizes shall be tested and the larger should weigh at least twice the weight of the other (of the same design). If the anchors are to be used in different seabeds then the anchors are to be tested in 3 different seabeds. There are 3 pulls in each seabed. The tests are the responsibility of the anchor maker, who also chooses the seabeds, the representative of the CS will attend and approve, or otherwise, the test procedures.

When testing thus, 3 different seabeds, 3 pulls in each, 2 sizes of anchor of the design being assessed. Plus identical treatment of a standard, which might be Bruce, Delta or CQR.

That's 36 pulls in total

That's a lot of work demanding consistent data - of one result, namely approval (or otherwise) of Super High Holding Power.

So after 36 pulls an anchor is Certified to have twice the hold of a High Holding Power anchor - but this is not reflected in the Panope spreadsheets - in fact it is not questioned. Tests by VetV, West Marine et all produce the exact same results over a number of years, since 2006 - but the fact that this is not reflected in the Spread sheets is also ignored both by Steve Godwin and the viewing public.

So the CS accept that performance of Rocna and Supreme are similar to each other. Testing by the yachting press since 2006 concurs that Rocna and Supreme are similar. All tests find Rocna/Supreme to have a much more reliable hold, by around a factor of 2,more than a CQR. Members here find Rocna and Supreme to be a much more reliable anchor based on their accumulated knowledge (read any anchor thread) than CQR. Turn to Cruisers Forum and ask Rocna owners if they are prepared to change to a CQR (they will laugh their socks off).

Now it could be that hold is not a very useful measure of performance - but there is no justification given as to why it is rejected.

It now appears that maybe truth, accuracy and a different seabed are producing results that reflect reality - so can we expect to see all 136 videos and the spread sheets to be withdrawn. There are a lot of people who have worshipped the information contained in the Panope videos and spreadsheets - they are making decisions on purchase based on flawed information (or based on seabeds that are not typical)

Now - truth time. I'm not a fan of the Smiths - they should have know of the bendy shank debacle - in advance. They should have nipped it in the bud. OK they closed their eyes - then they should not have denied - but checked and checked and double checked. They did not - I am reluctant to reward arrogance. But the Panope videos must have impacted Rocna (and by association Vulcan sales). Is there not a moral responsibility to fess up - big time. Lets not forget Spade - wonder how many other products..... Epsilon..... have been maligned.

The bendy shank saga was a disgrace, this may be a different scale but however you look at it - it smells.

Steve Godwin established himself as The Guru - its a simple test to ensure the seabeds you are using are typical.

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan

 

[Yooha83]

But if a 10kg anchor works significantly different to a 20kg anchor - of the same design - then they are not of the same design (they may look the same but something is different or they would perform in a similar way).

Now it might be interesting to know that a manufacturer has his scaling 'wrong' but the 'Panope' work was envisaged to evaluate design not quirks in scaling.

Consequently though Manson's Supreme is missing from this specific video it has appeared in other videos and as the videos are meant to be a cumulative collection of anchor characteristics (emphasised by some of the spreadsheets) it does not seem untoward to mention its performance against Rocna (and other anchors). After all it was Peter Smith himself who suggested The Supreme was but a cheap (or poor) copy of a Rocna. Both have been rated as Super High Holding Power anchors by RINA (Rocna) or Lloyds (Supreme) so to have them rated on these videos differently merits a comment.

It merits note also that in terms of hold anchors of the same design but of different weight have a simple relationship between hold and weight - so why differentiate our anchors. I think most people reading a review by Yachting Monthly, SAIL or Voile et Voileurs of 15kg anchors would expect 20kg or 30 kg models to performed similarly - why suddenly this is not the case would merit quantitative explanation.

Let me share some more facts re:scaling (trying to not get too much offtopic, promise)
Same seabed, same methodology at location Kilspindie
PAGE 86, PBO 538, Manson supreme versions/designs scaling, efficiencies (12/21) quite different, rocna (21/30) not same, Small Manson vs Small rocna also performs quite differently (@vyv_cox) being aware their different weights (manson/rocna)

2011_-_Test_et_Comparatif_Ancres_-_PRACTICAL_BOAT_OWNER.pdf (spade-anchor.com)

RE: Quirks in Scaling Panope:
Check video 126 surf sand: skip to minute 18:00, compare efficiency viking 7/Viking 10 quite similar in this seabed
Surf Sand Anchor Testing. Video # 126 - YouTube

Video 135: bruce scale Part 2
Bruce Scale Part 2. Anchor Test # 135 - YouTube

So at least for the Panope part it seems you are not up to date anymore.

Kind regards,
Y

 

[sailaboutvic]

Reading all this some must spend most of there life watching these video .

Now if you look at 31m22s into the video a night with a stranger, it's clear she faking it .

 

[Neeves]

You cannot be serious.

You cannot scale anchors based on 2 sizes of an anchor - unless its a joke

This is scaling of Fortress in mud. Multiple sizes, multiple tests. The data has a semblance of credibility.




Jonathan

 

[Yooha83]

Is there not a moral responsibility to fess up - big time. Lets not forget Spade - wonder how many other products..... Epsilon..... have been maligned.

The bendy shank saga was a disgrace, this may be a different scale but however you look at it - it smells.

" If I were an anchor manufacturer I would be trying to influence these results (in the nicest possible way) - they are unhealthily powerful. I am not suggesting making one's anchor looking better, though that is one option - but a bit obvious - but denigrating the market leaders is another option. And if you want to 'nip an anchor in the bud'....? like Epsilon - do so before it gains any momentum." Jonathan "Neeves" 1 Aug 2022

...talking of moral standards...

Maybe it is time to review the beginning and the end of this thread and discover a misty debate characterized of belief and not to believe, black and white thinking, narrowed down categorizing of a complex and highly variable dependant field, strongly ignoring the introductional video's content and major thread subject and facts given by replying forum members, over bashing an uninvolved third person's, namely SV Panope/ Youtuber's hard work for several pages.
I'm afraid I have the suspicion, the only intent of opening this thread serves this purpose - repeatedly, if you look at similar topics like
Rocna's bad press by video - anchor thread don't read if you don't like anchor threads! | YBW Forum

It doesn't get more true or right, the more it is repeated.

So I'd like to suggest a moderator may kindly close this thread, as it is leading nowhere positive nor constructive.

 

[vyv_cox]

Dear @vyv_cox Interesting, to say the least, if not presumptuous to find the time to comment on a video that I claim to not watch for lack of free time, but at the same time to suggest a possible underlying secret agenda. There would have to be at least sources or solid evidence for such a drastic assumption that go beyond hearsay. Furthermore, no sources or evidence have been provided by you that the Manson Supreme performs similarly to the Rocna in Panope's tests of the 22 pound anchor (topic of this thread) or at least any Panope video. I kindly ask you to provide them or refrain from making such speculative and fact-free statements in the future. Using other anchor tests as arguments without naming them and presenting concrete results and relating them to the topic of the thread Video 138 are offtopic. This is also a matter of accuracy and fair conduct.

I have watched quite enough of Panope's unnecessarily wordy and lengthy videos to know that I do not trust his results and, as this thread has shown, neither do many others. Since you challenge me to show evidence from other tests, this is the results table of the 2006 YM/Sail/West Marine test programme carried out in California. Most authorities agree that this is one of the most comprehensive tests ever carried out, and unlikely to be repeated given the cost. OK, it was done with 35 lb anchors, as being more meaningful than 22 lb ones for most users, but do we think that the size will change the result greatly? You can see here that the Rocna and Manson Supreme performed in almost identical manner.

This is only one of the many tests that have been carried out. Neeves has named others, none of whom show a great deal of variation from these. The full text of the test programme was available on the West Marine website, not sure now.

My own knowledge is based on anchoring as a liveaboard for half of almost every year since 2003, plus a good deal in the 20 years before that. I have made a study of anchors underwater, taking many photographs, and regularly contribute articles on the subject to several magazines and give talks to yachting clubs and societies. I think I can claim to know a little about the topic.

Here are two photos for you. The first is a Manson Supreme, the second is my Rocna. They were taken at Sandbar Bay, Kithnos, following S-SE force 4 that veered to NW force 7 for many hours. You can see the pattern in the sand showing the rotation and the fact that neither of them dragged in the slightest (contrary to Panope's findings). I prefer to believe what I have seen and recorded rather than some very dubious testing, particularly his rate of reversal,. I could show you dozens of photographs illustrating the same thing but life is too short.

 

[vyv_cox]

So I'd like to suggest a moderator may kindly close this thread, as it is leading nowhere positive nor constructive.

I see you are new to this and maybe unaware. Anchor threads run and run, not necessarily leading anywhere and often branching off to form totally new life. It's a forum, not a scientific paper.

 

[sailaboutvic]

I second what vyv have said . With over 40 years anchoring experience, 20 PT liveaboard and 15 as a full time liveaboard on our hook .
We have used over the years CQR,Bruce,Delta , Rocna and now we are using a Manson .
I cant account for the Manson yet as we only been using it for some months but so far it's been great .
Out of the others the Rocna has out preformed it self , in winds well over F8 touching 9 .
I find not only there test misleading but also confusing to many who read the data and watch them,
One month there are being told by Mr X this anchor out porform all anchors , so they rush out and buy it , throw a perfect good anchor away , only for a years to pass and be told some thing different.
There are a lot of sheep sailor out there and it don't take much to persuade them to buying some thing.

 

[geem]

I have watched quite enough of Panope's unnecessarily wordy and lengthy videos to know that I do not trust his results and, as this thread has shown, neither do many others. Since you challenge me to show evidence from other tests, this is the results table of the 2006 YM/Sail/West Marine test programme carried out in California. Most authorities agree that this is one of the most comprehensive tests ever carried out, and unlikely to be repeated given the cost. OK, it was done with 35 lb anchors, as being more meaningful than 22 lb ones for most users, but do we think that the size will change the result greatly? You can see here that the Rocna and Manson Supreme performed in almost identical manner.
View attachment 140446
This is only one of the many tests that have been carried out. Neeves has named others, none of whom show a great deal of variation from these. The full text of the test programme was available on the West Marine website, not sure now.

My own knowledge is based on anchoring as a liveaboard for half of almost every year since 2003, plus a good deal in the 20 years before that. I have made a study of anchors underwater, taking many photographs, and regularly contribute articles on the subject to several magazines and give talks to yachting clubs and societies. I think I can claim to know a little about the topic.

Here are two photos for you. The first is a Manson Supreme, the second is my Rocna. They were taken at Sandbar Bay, Kithnos, following S-SE force 4 that veered to NW force 7 for many hours. You can see the pattern in the sand showing the rotation and the fact that neither of them dragged in the slightest (contrary to Panope's findings). I prefer to believe what I have seen and recorded rather than some very dubious testing, particularly his rate of reversal,. I could show you dozens of photographs illustrating the same thing but life is too short.
View attachment 140447View attachment 140449

I also have no confidence in Panopes testing regime or results. I asked him directly why he though the Rocna didn't work in his sea bed. He said maybe it had some binder in there but he labelled that sea bed as clean sand. His latest video says it holds well at a different location. He still calls his first test location clean sand. Its utter garbage. By the way, I don't have a Rocna but I know several long distance sailors that spend their life full time on the hook sailing all over the world that use them with great success. Panoply results are simply not credible or reflective of the real world

 

[Yooha83]

You can see here that the Rocna and Manson Supreme performed in almost identical manner.

Great, thank you, honestly! Finally at least someone tryin to bring quantifieable input. It would be very interesting which three seabeds were tested, and further variables like rode material, pulling speed... the last seabed (interesting because the weakest performance) features Rocna a steady drag at apprx 43x anchor weight, so curious to know which one
Surprisingly the CQR in the second location, bar number three, equals Manson supreme's performance and quite close to rocna's, have you recognized?

However the question why you mentioned the Manson supreme in a topic where this very anchor is irrelevant as not being tested (video 138)remains open, and besides off-topic. And adding off-topic: still missing prove of "particularly when the so-similar Manson Supreme seems to be satisfactory". Can you please keep up your effort and post the relevant panope data/video where the Manson seems satisfactory?

Your pics are great, and especially the location above water, I am sure, I love Cyclades ;-) Could you make this very personal experience a bit more quantifiable, please, say boat length/displacement, pilot saloon/racer-cruiser, anchor size, in order to provide a chance of calculating the anchor loads, to generate some comparable data against Panope's. That would be fun!
Following the Neeves' school my impression is your anchor looks oversized as not buried deeply for the given windloads.

Re anchor threads branching off, socializing and gossipping without hurting third persons' integrity- Wouldn't the creation of a general anchor related topic be great for this kind of purpose? And more specific topics like this one sunbjecting one single youtube video wouldnt't suffer from so much wishy washy misty cloud hearsay experience without quantifiable content? Inquisitive people would probably be attracted, just an assumption.

I might be new here (actually not sooo), however please don't confuse fair conduct, accuracy, integrity, respect, with science. Look at the little number of content in my profile, amazingly I tried to feed some solid facts to the "rocna's bad press by video"-thread and encourage debate last October, so it feels like an irritating loop of re-chewing here, and moreover most of the food seems long forgotten.

Stay strong, all the best!
Y

 

[Neeves]

2006 Anchor test

https://www.kp44.org/ftp/2006_AnchorTests__SailMagazine.pdf

http://svsoggypaws.com/files/Yachting_Monthly_2006_Anchor_Test.pdf

If the Video 138 is indicative of a typical seabed - and if the Rocna results are correct in Video 138 - then all the previous tests with a Rocna (and other anchors) are invalid. The test would be to move to a new, but still typical seabed, and repeat the tests with the exact same series of anchors using the same equipment.

If the same protocol is being used for all the tests, and I believe this is the case, then there is either something seriously wrong with the protocols or the seabeds are totally different.

As has been mentioned by Geem - suggestion, recommendations have been made to Steve Godwin of his protocols - they have been ignored.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

The test linked in my previous post was very comprehensive and have been a reliable source of information for close to 2 decades.

The test was conducted largely on sand and were attended by a cross section or leisure marine journalists - which should have removed any bias. The tests were funded by West Marine, I think organised by Chuck Hawley. The tests were widely reported in a cross section of publications.

In contrast to use of sand as a seabed in which to test Fortress chose soupy mud for some more recent tests - and this indicates that different seabeds throw up, totally, different results. Again the tests were attended by a cross section of marine journalists who reported in a cross section of the published media. There should have been no bias in the reporting - but Fortress were making a point underlining the excellence of their product in a specific and easily defined seabed. This link is to the Fortress website which contains further links for the reports and results.

Chesapeake Bay Anchor Test - The World's Best Anchors!

I'm trying to find links to the Voile tests - watch this space.

Voile conducted 2 tests, of which I am aware. Both were published in Voile et Voileurs and the first was published in English by Yachting Monthly and a later test published in English by Yachting World

This is a link to the YM publication

https://www.chainsropesandanchors.co.nz/image/data/PDFs/Yachting Monthly -Anchor Test Nov09.pdf



Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

The test linked in my previous post was very comprehensive and have been a reliable source of information for close to 2 decades.

The test was conducted largely on sand and were attended by a cross section of leisure marine professional journalists - which should have removed any bias. The tests were funded by West Marine, I think organised by Chuck Hawley. The tests were widely reported in a cross section of publications.

In contrast to use of sand as a seabed in which to test Fortress chose soupy mud for some more recent tests - and this indicates that different seabeds throw up, totally, different results. Again the tests were attended by a cross section of marine journalists who reported in a cross section of the published media. There should have been no bias in the reporting - but Fortress were making a point underlining the excellence of their product in a specific and easily defined seabed. This link is to the Fortress website which contains further links for the reports and results.

Chesapeake Bay Anchor Test - The World's Best Anchors!

This is the first of the Voile tests, of which I am aware. A second test was published by Yachting World (but I cannot find a link).

https://www.chainsropesandanchors.co.nz/image/data/PDFs/Yachting Monthly -Anchor Test Nov09.pdf

Historically if you read these articles they gave a basis on which to base a decision for an anchor purchase.

I have a couple of caveats

If you anchor in, what I call, ribbon grass, stringy weed, kelp or weed with a dense root structure then no anchor will perform well. A Fishermans will penetrate - but it has no surface area and you rely on the root strength not on hold.




Fouling of anchors is not just an inconvenience.

This yacht was anchored in an area subject to a recent cyclone, there was a lot or debris, palm fronds, towels, seaweed ripped from the seabed, swim suits - in any even a well set anchor, deployed by a professional was not enough



The Fortress tests underline the issues with soupy mud. Vyv's excellent images indicate and under line - even in a wind of varying direction an anchor with a good hold is reliable - and for good hold look at the above links to anchor testing or consider an anchor found by the Classification Societies to be Super High Holding Power anchors. viz Spade, Rocna, Supreme, Excel, Ultra, Fortress and possibly Epsilon.

Practical Sailor conducted some veering tests and found a well and deep set anchor (think of an anchor with good hold) best resists a veering tension. Think of my comments on a specific anchor that sets shallow.

Deep Anchors Stay Put in Moderate Yawing - Practical Sailor

Comment has been made that this is a repetitive series of posts regurgitating the same story. I seems that the criticism has basis but it has taken 2 threads to reach a conclusion and the conclusion is reached now by a number of people.

Rocna WAS maligned, there is something very questionable about the Panope protocols, either the tests or the majority of the seabeds. People who spent hours, days - looking at the videos in wonder - need to reconsider their conclusions and be a bit more critical. It was obvious the results on Rocna did not reflect reality - but though you watched all the videos you did not question.....and were critical and insulting of those who did question.

Finally - Morgan's Cloud based their conclusion on actual events, testing has shown they had a point - incidents since might be indicative people have learnt and taken avoiding action, or that the incidences were few and far between - just be cautious. Concave flukes do clog, they are difficult to wash out with a deck wash - a clogged anchor will not re-set quickly. Don't get the idea that this only happens to concave anchors - power set, dewater the mud and other anchors can clog.

This is a Fortress anchor, power set, in soupy mud - soupy mud when dewatered takes a lot of cleaning - and will not re-set till it is clean.




Many owners of anchors will suggest that a clogged anchor means it has been well set - I'm sure this is true. Until it is not (that catamaran pictured above). Many owners don't admit their concave anchors clog - thank goodness for honesty - see sailaboutvic posts on clogging of his anchor on this thread.

Just be cautious, read the articles, take note of posts on other threads - as Yooha83 implies - anchoring might be defined by science but we are a long way from precision and our comments sometime lack quantification - but burning books, banning members from contributing, attacking personalities was never the answer.

Jonathan

 

[geem]

We use a 30kg Spade anchor. It's a fantastic anchor in most seabeds. It's a great all-rounder but, the fluke area is not huge compared to other anchors of a similar weight. This has benefits in hard seabeds where penetration of a crusty surface or hard grass roots is an issue. In such seabed as we find in the Caribbean, it performs extremely well. Far better than old generation anchors that struggle with this type of seabed. The downside of the relatively small Spade fluke area is hold in thin mud. One anchorage that always causes us and many boats holding issues is the town anchorage in Fort de France, Martinique. This anchorage always gets congested as its crammed in to a corner between the castle foreshore and the ferry terminal. Boats drag for fun. Power setting often leads to dragging for us. We avoid this anchorage because of this poor holding. I could swap over to our Fortress But that would be a pain to do so I just don't anchor there. I could set the Fortress on all rope rode but that's not a great idea in a crowded anchorage where swinging room is an issue.

 

[vyv_cox]

Your pics are great, and especially the location above water, I am sure, I love Cyclades ;-) Could you make this very personal experience a bit more quantifiable, please, say boat length/displacement, pilot saloon/racer-cruiser, anchor size, in order to provide a chance of calculating the anchor loads, to generate some comparable data against Panope's. That would be fun!
Following the Neeves' school my impression is your anchor looks oversized as not buried deeply for the given windloads.

The Manson was 25kg I think, possibly 33kg, carried by a 55 ft USA sailing yacht. Mine is a 15kg Rocna on a Sadler 34.

Jonathan and I differ on the topic of burying. I have taken hundreds of underwater photos of my Rocna in Greek seabeds and have never seen it completely buried. I have rarely seen any make of anchor totally buried, so maybe this is a function of the seabed.

The anchor is correctly sized for my boat and I do not subscribe to the oversized school of thought. You can read more about my reasoning on my website at Oversize anchors – necessary?

 

[vyv_cox]

Duplicate post - poor internet signal.

 

[Neeves]

Duplicate post - poor internet signal.

Vyv.

Same issues here in Oz - I thought it was a YBW issue.

Jonathan