Sailing Today Anchor test - how useful?

[AlanPound]

I see that Sailing Today has carried out and published an anchor test - potentially very useful, but marred in the execution, I think.

First, despite testing 18 anchors, they have omitted to test what many people would use as benchmarks - genuine CQR, Danforth, Bruce etc - and thereby allow people to make meaningful comparisons against anchors they know.

Second, they intended to test in three different types of bottom, but in the end were only able to test in one - rather diluting the usefulness of the test.

Third, they had a number of anomolies that they made no real attempt to explain. They had one case where a 12kg anchor had 5x the holding of a 14kg anchor of the same pattern.

In the case of the Britany anchor, where the 14kg exhibitied 700kg of holding, and the 12kg only reached 100kg, they said "The 14kg ... at one stage produced the biggest reading we were to see .... 700kg", and 700kg is the result they published.

From these words, I tend to infer that it was a one-off result (could they have snagged a wreck at that point?) They were testing off a 'real' boat, against a real bottom (very commendable) - but it wasn't clear whether they could see the bottom at any time (5m depth of Southampton water), or indeed that they did more than one pull test per anchor type.

They obviously put real effort into these tests, and the exercise potentially had real value to the reader - but the apparent lack of scientific method in respect of repeatability, and finding explanations for obvious (!!!! ok - non-intuitive) anomolous results, rather spoiled it for me.

So, apart from the fact that the results will clearly upset Hylas (which will always be worthwhile ;~), where is the real value?

What do others think?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

.. some time ago i wrote a post here about the lack of stringency yachting mags applied to gear tests .. most items were never tested as you and i understand the meaning of the word

ym favour a panel of journos who pile the kit on a desk and with coffee in hand make meaningful, insightful, observations about the colour, style and discuss at length one particular aspect eg the on/off button. time flashes past and its lunchtime so further discussion is conducted with the aid of liquid refreshment. returning in the late afternoon, a member of the panel is delegated to find a plug so they can report that the on/off button works .... and afterwards ... a long and erudite screed which was cribbed off the manufacturer's pr

sailing today do actually test the gear somewhat more thoroughly for which we have to be thankful ... even if it goes a bit wonky as any experimenter can tell you ....

all imho of course


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BigART]

I absolutely agree with all of your points. As you say, worthy intentions, but the limited testing with little analysis of the results makes the conclusions almost certainly misleading. Some sort of investigation of what was happening on the seabed (a diver with video?) would have been useful. I would be reluctant to make a decision based on this test.

Weed covered bottoms seem to be particularly difficult but no attempt to test this area. I had heard good things about the Spade on weedy bottoms, but I was surprised at the poor showing. I have also heard good things about the Delta, which came out well.

As you say, some comparisons with a standard CQR/Danforth would have been very useful.

Keep reading the reviews.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

The French magazine 'Voiles et Voiliers' May 2003 tested 20 anchors in 2 types of bottom, with a load cell arrangement and comrehensive underwater photography. The best performer overall in both bottoms was the genuine CQR, the Delta (which we use and really like) did not come out that well, contrary to Sailing Today. The French article ran to 12 pages of data and photographs. No please do not ask for a translation!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Capt_Marlinspike]

I was very surprised by the anchor test in Sailing Today. Their results did not seem to be inline with other tests I have seen. The method seemed a bit hit and miss.
Very surprised about the results of the Spade. I bought one of these 2 years ago and it has been much better than my old CQR. With the spade it has only failed to set once and has never dragged. The old CQR was quite ggod but had a habit of breaking out after the tide turned and the boat swund round.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[vyv_cox]

All Anchor tests - how useful?

I have yet to see a test that was useful to the cruising yachtsman. Without exception, the ones I have read (many) concentrate entirely on ultimate holding power. Since all are reasonable in this respect, at least in a decent bottom, the values recorded represent conditions at which any sensible yachtsman would have cleared out and either gone offshore or into some better shelter.

When are we going to see tests that assess initial bedding, rebedding when tides reverse, ability to set in unfavourable bottoms, stowing aboard (including securing in stemhead rollers), etc? These are clearly much less easy to carry out than putting a load cell in the anchor warp, but how much more useful.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[DeeGee]

Re: All Anchor tests - how useful?

Surely there was one not so long ago by a Professor Knox, if I remember rightly? His results didn't agree with my gut feelings, but nevertheless seemed to be moderately scientific in his approach?

<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all

 

[AlanPound]

Re: All Anchor tests - how useful?

"Surely there was one not so long ago by a Professor Knox, if I remember rightly? His results didn't agree with my gut feelings, but nevertheless seemed to be moderately scientific in his approach?"

... I think you are correct, and if it is how I remember it, it was pretty much in one single type of holding (sand?)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AlanPound]

"ym favour a panel of journos who pile the kit on a desk and with coffee in hand make meaningful, insightful, observations about the colour, style <etc>"

... LOL, yes, very well observed.

"sailing today do actually test the gear somewhat more thoroughly for which we have to be thankful ... "

... and of course, no-one would want to discourage their good intentions...

... It is just that, had they stuck to their original planned 3 types of holding, included a few more well-known anchors types, convinced us that they carried out multiple pull-tests, and followed up the few very odd results in a convincing manner, then I think we would have had a really valuable report....

Alan

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[NigeCh]

He did a variety of tests

over a long period. His results were published in YM (August 1997). He more or less said that a minimum scope of 6 : 1 was necessary. But like all anchor tests (and there are plenty around if you Google them) none of the tests address the fundamental issues of a) how to set the anchor in the first place and b) what scope is required so that the anchor can reset if it has been pulled out. [Hinz doesn't get to this completely either.]

How many people here know or know how to calculate what the forces on a boat are when its anchored?

IMO, unless an anchor sets then so-called holding power is useless.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Hurleyburly]

What REALLY irks me is how YM constructs its 'New Gear' pages - the copy comes straight from the manufacturer's literature and reads like a brochure - surely we should expect something more constructive than this.

Also, I now have no more need to read all about Tom Cunliffe's daughter. And does anyone else think that his prose is perhaps, just sometimes, a teeny weeny bit arrogant ?

Quite honestly I'd rather have Sarah Norbury back at the helm, or maybe a direct rival to YM introduced to the marketplace so that we can see some really healthy competition out there producing a better product.

Okay, whine over.

And I'm still not going to cancel my subscription !

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[vyv_cox]

Re: All Anchor tests - how useful?

I have copies of his tests. Scientifically conducted as one might expect, but his anchor selection was odd (One was a Hi-line. Ever seen one?), including a copy of a CQR and a copy of a Bruce. He mostly did straight pulls in sand. Some of his results are quoted by Hylas (Spade came out best) but others are conveniently denied (for example - bigger boats need heavier anchors, in a ratio not miles from one pound per foot of length)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[coco]

Have a look here: http://www.practical-sailor.com/pub/29_23/features/4892-1.html

Practical Sailor is running tests regularly.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

They recommend the bruce,

Could someone tell me what stops a bruce staying upside down, or on it's back. Is it a possibility, or does the wieght of the spade always make it turn and dig in?

<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

 

[coco]

The recommendation for the Bruce was made in 1998! Later tests showed different results. For the 2003 test: "Soft Sand Over Hard Sand - In tough testing conditions, and considered by weight, the aluminum Fortress and galvanized West Marine Performance2 — both Danforth types — do well, along with the Spade Model 80 and the Bulwagga."

You might want to look at their 200/2001 tests as well. The scoring is quite different depending on the nature of the sea ground.
The Aluminum Spade made it twice as "Gear-of-the-Year" in 2000 and 2001.

Generally speaking, I have found the tests of Practical Sailor to be very useful, whatever the piece of gear they are talking about.

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by coco on 13/11/2003 09:19 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[PeterGibbs]

Re: C\'est ca - n\'est pas?

I favour getting a translation of the Voiles et Voiliers article and have done with it.
I'm not too proud to admit the Frogs can mount a decent piece of literature now and then.

Ok I'll come clean - I admit I have always relied on CQR and that seems to come out best in the V & V tests, so I'm just just going to stay with the flow etc...

Toutes pour La Vie tranquille....

PWG

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Re: C\'est ca - n\'est pas?

We always had a CQR which was excellent but with our latest boat have a Delta, very good it is too. YW apparently have an article on anchors inc underwater piccies, planned for next month.

I like the French mags, always buy them first chance I get. They did a good test of inflatable tenders too, very sensible unbiased comment.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jamesjermain]

Although I shouldn't say it, I have some sympathy with ST over this anchor piece. While deploring the briefness of the tests, the fact that the results are at odds with other tests and people's gut instincts is about par for the course. I, too, was astonished by some of their findings, but knowing how anchor trials go, I understand the difficulties.

I have been involved in four or five sets of anchor trials over the years. Setting up proper, reliable test parameters is always difficult and anchors and conditions never behave as they should. Even the sea bed, which mich look like sand, can have chunks of clay in it which distort results. Weed can be thick or thin, rock smooth or spikey, etc.

We have done tests in all sorts of ways including in shallow water using tractors to do the pulling, so that we can see what's happening. We have also had underwater photographers and divers,used load cells and spring balances, chain, warp an various combinations of the two. We have circled teh anchor and pulled at 190 degrees, imposed snatch loads and steady loads, upward loads and sideways loads. We have never had two sets of tests with similar results. In my time the most comprehensive tests were those done by Prof Knox yet the results were still not quite what people might have expected.

For what it's worh, my view is that, while there are some anchors which are clearly better in come condtions than others, all the major types work well provided: they are set properly, have sufficient scope, and are checked at the turn of the tide. After that, it's as muc to do with personal preference and experience, which stows best on your boat and is easiest for you to handle.

I appreciate the comments about YM tests! I am sure you are right, a quick switch-on, fiddle with the knobs, read the manual and off down to the pub.

Is it only me who has bobbed about at sea on more nights than I can remember testing liferafts, lights, sleep patterns etc, and gone overboard in the interestsof MOB research; spent finger numbing hours in gales and snow testing this and that. It nice to know that you think we do it all in the warm of the office with a glass of something at our elbow. Sometimes I wish it were true

When we test something we try to test it properly although I am always prepared to listen to advice on how our test methods could be improved. People sometimes misunderstand the difference between tests and reviews. Our New Gear pages are usually, but not always, simple, uncritical reviews of what is new on the market. Frequently we will get the product to look at and play around with not always. Sometimes we will simply report on the launch of a new product and give some basic details about it without a test. This is perfectly valid on a page devoted to new equipment when no claims are made to the contrary.

We also do market reviews in which we present information on a number of products of a similar type, without actually conducting tests. As long as we make no claims to have done proper testing, this is also valid, though I accept, not as useful and full tests. We usually publish this sort of report when, for whatever reason, we don't have the resources, including time, to do the full monty. Our feeling is that this sort of report is better than nothing, and usually either follows on from a comparatively recent full test report in the same area, or is followed, not too long after, but such a piece - in other words a taster. We have one such on plotters coming up in January.


<hr width=100% size=1>JJ

 

[trinity393]

I share the concerns about this test as they contradict my own experience. I carry a 16kg Brittanny and a 20kg Spade. In c. 30+ seperate anchorages in the med this summer the Spade has never failed to hold first time whilst being tested in reverse at 2500 rpm with a 56 hp engine -PROVIDED that it had been dropped in sand or mud - not weed. It also held happily in 35kts one night and reset happily through 180 deg wind shifts. It was much less good in weed - but then everything seems to have same problem. We used the Brittany less often - and it was OK ish but lacked the seemingly infinte holding power of the Spade ( then again its smaller). The best thing about the Britt was that it would cling on to the roots of weed and hold enough for still nights (provided you like being anchored to a clump of weed which seems to be the way the French do it).

The only way to choose an anchor is to talk to people who anchor in your area. Personally I wish I had a Delta for harder mud and weed (as people tell me they are OK at cutting through weed) and a Spade for softer mud and sand.

<hr width=100% size=1>