martinwoolwich
New member
I saw these demonstarted at the LBS. Anybody know anything about them or have any experience of them outside the Anchor Rite web site?
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
SARCA Anchor
- Thread starter martinwoolwich
- Start date
whisper
New member
See post "Anchor chain length" on MoBo chat of last week.
Cheers.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Cheers.
<hr width=100% size=1>
martinwoolwich
New member
Found it - Thanks John
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
martinwoolwich
New member
Found it - Thanks John
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
Ric
Well-known member
Maybe they work well in Aus, but why do you think that is a recommendation? The hardest bottom to anchor on in European waters is kelp - they don't have that there. I think if I had to have only one anchor for Eurpean waters I'd have one of those Wasi Bugelankers - they work in sand/mud/gravel, they also cut through kelp, they also hook onto rocks. Good anchor, from what I have observed.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
duncan
Active member
Ric - how would you describe the differences between the WASI and the SARCA - ignoring the 'sliding stock element' of the SARCA.
I ask because to me they look as though they are the same.........
<hr width=100% size=1>
I ask because to me they look as though they are the same.........
<hr width=100% size=1>
Ric
Well-known member
I admit I haven't seen a SARCA in the flesh and was just judging from the website, which gave me the impression that the head was a plough. Plough anchors don't generally cut through kelp terribly well. It does seem on closer inspection that the SARCA has a fairly flat blade, so maybe you are right, and maybe it is closer to the WASI than I first thought. But I'd still be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a WASI rather than an untried anchor. I've looked at a lot of WASI's on the seabed around the Med, and they are always well set, in just about any bottom. I like them a lot and will get one on my next boat. I'd always spend my money on gear that it tried and tested in the area I sail, rather than what works on the other side of the world.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
kindredspirit
Well-known member
One point I was thinking about the Sarca was, if, when the tide turned and if the anchor chain rode to the bottom of the stock, then the Sarca might not reset.
I've no experience of it. I was just thinking aloud.
.
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.begleys.com/kevin/weather.htm>Weather & other useful links for Irish waters.</A>
I've no experience of it. I was just thinking aloud.
.
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.begleys.com/kevin/weather.htm>Weather & other useful links for Irish waters.</A>
duncan
Active member
At the risk of begining to sounds as if I have an interest in the SARCA ..........
Why is the risk of it resetting any different to any other anchor when the tide changes? I agree that it is more likely to reset 'as the tide changes' than some anchors which will hang on in for a bit the wrong way round - then suddenly go when the flow really gets going but I would have thought this a good thing as you know exactly when to monitor it carefully.
Re RIc and tried and tested - I agree. There seem to me 2 key elements of the 'testing' - one around breakage the other around the effectiveness of the design for (1) setting (2) resetting (3) breaking out (4) holding. My contention is that the design of the 2 anchors being discussed here is the same with the one exception of breaking out where the sliding stock of the SARCA has a couple of advantages. If this leads to a weakness in the stock this would I believe show up in Aus as much as the North Sea.
I think we need to approach the 2 manufactures for equivilent samples for the next forum meet!
<hr width=100% size=1>
Why is the risk of it resetting any different to any other anchor when the tide changes? I agree that it is more likely to reset 'as the tide changes' than some anchors which will hang on in for a bit the wrong way round - then suddenly go when the flow really gets going but I would have thought this a good thing as you know exactly when to monitor it carefully.
Re RIc and tried and tested - I agree. There seem to me 2 key elements of the 'testing' - one around breakage the other around the effectiveness of the design for (1) setting (2) resetting (3) breaking out (4) holding. My contention is that the design of the 2 anchors being discussed here is the same with the one exception of breaking out where the sliding stock of the SARCA has a couple of advantages. If this leads to a weakness in the stock this would I believe show up in Aus as much as the North Sea.
I think we need to approach the 2 manufactures for equivilent samples for the next forum meet!
<hr width=100% size=1>
kindredspirit
Well-known member
What I was thinking, was that when the tide reversed and the boat rode over the top of the anchor so bringing the chain down to the bottom of the stock, the anchor would naturally pull out; but because the chain is now in the wrong position for resetting, the anchor wouldn't re-set but drag backwards along the sea floor.
I presume that in a case where the anchor is being dragged backwards the design of the anchor makes it turn around to the right way. But I was just wondering.
The BugelAnker/Wasi has no sliding stock so it wouldn't have this problem, (if in fact there is any problem.)
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.begleys.com/kevin/weather.htm>Weather & other useful links for Irish waters.</A>
I presume that in a case where the anchor is being dragged backwards the design of the anchor makes it turn around to the right way. But I was just wondering.
The BugelAnker/Wasi has no sliding stock so it wouldn't have this problem, (if in fact there is any problem.)
<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.begleys.com/kevin/weather.htm>Weather & other useful links for Irish waters.</A>
