Sarca Excel

Brian, that is Sarca's own promotional "testing", rubber stamped by some outfit that has nothing to do with the marine industry and nobody knows! Are you seriously fooled by this stuff, do you know damn well that it is but think you can mislead readers into thinking it's independent, or is it just a case of desperately continuing your smear campaign against Rocna, consequences be damned?
 
Australian anchor comes out top in Australian tests.
French anchor comes out top in French Tests.
American anchor---------------American tests.
N.Z.----
Etc. Etc.

We badly need some one to make a British anchor so that we could test it to come out top here, think of the savings in carrying big blumps of steel across the globe and the ease with which we could sleep on a stormy night.
Cue the man with the CQR.

But then what would we argue about, ensigns are so boring.
 
I am just trying to sort out the truth in all of this.

After I saw that YouTube beach video by Peter Smith, in which the Rocna was pulled oh so slowly, and the Sarca was pulled oh so fast......and then some of the audio was removed that mentioned how fast the Sarca was being pulled....and then right there on the same YouTube page there were countering videos from Sarca.....I started to get interested in what the hell was going on down there.

I mean, this stuff is crazy. From what I have read, Sarca is getting accreditations for their testing equipment and they have some forms of approvals from the Australian marine industry, so they appear to be 100% legit with their testing in the eyes of a complete outsider. They have also been in business a long time and no company accomplishes that by swindling people.
 
Quandary said:
Australian anchor comes out top in Australian tests.
French anchor comes out top in French Tests.
American anchor---------------American tests.
N.Z.----
Etc. Etc.

We badly need some one to make a British anchor so that we could test it to come out top here, think of the savings in carrying big blumps of steel across the globe and the ease with which we could sleep on a stormy night.
Cue the man with the CQR.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the Delta didn't come out on top of British anchor tests.

One thought, may be each manufacturer produces their anchor for it's home market, so it comes top of that test...I dunno, I just take photos :)
 
Brian@Fortress said:
I am just trying to sort out the truth in all of this. After I saw that YouTube beach video by Peter Smith, in which the Rocna was pulled oh so slowly, and the Sarca was pulled oh so fast......and then some of the audio was removed that mentioned how fast the Sarca was being pulled....and then right there on the same YouTube page there were countering videos from Sarca.....
Click to expand...
You mean the YouTube video which was posted explicitly a few days ago in response to your use of Sarca's scam videos to attack Rocna. The one in which the pull speeds differ because the force of pull is constant and one anchor holds while the other doesn't...

Brian@Fortress said:
From what I have read, Sarca is getting accreditations for their testing equipment
Click to expand...
You mean from what you've read in their promo material. Accreditation from whom, and to what standard?

Brian@Fortress said:
and they have some forms of approvals from the Australian marine industry
Click to expand...
"Some sort" - what sort precisely? Australia has no native classification outfit, the IACS being the only set of standards for anchor certification.

snooks said:
Unfortunately the Delta didn't come out on top of British anchor tests.

One thought, may be each manufacturer produces their anchor for it's home market, so it comes top of that test...I dunno, I just take photos :)
Click to expand...
What Australian tests? What British tests? As to the American test(s), the only recent one of any validity in the last decade sees the Rocna, Spade, Delta, and Fortress (NZ, French, British, and American respectively) in the top four - 1/4 is pretty poor if you want to allege misplaced patriotism.

I give you the French one though :) more's the pity an IPC mag published the translated version!
 
craigsmith said:
You mean the YouTube video which was posted explicitly a few days ago
Click to expand...

The date of the Rocna video that was uploaded on YouTube was February 6. I don't need to see a calendar to understand that was not a "few days ago."

And what happened to the audio when the Sarca was being pulled? Mysteriously not there anymore. Below is the video in question. If a first time viewer can tell me with a straight face that this was fair and honest, and that the Rocna and Sarca anchors were given equal treatment, then I'll......



craigsmith said:
You mean from what you've read in their promo material. Accreditation from whom, and to what standard?

"Some sort" - what sort precisely? Australia has no native classification outfit, the IACS being the only set of standards for anchor certification.
Click to expand...

The National Marine Safety Committee in Australia appears to have approved Sarca's test rig and the company that performed the pull tests. Sounds pretty damn official to me. Here is their web site:

http://www.nmsc.gov.au/
 
snooks said:
Unfortunately the Delta didn't come out on top of British anchor tests.

One thought, may be each manufacturer produces their anchor for it's home market, so it comes top of that test...I dunno, I just take photos :)
Click to expand...

Is the Delta not Hungarian, perhaps not, because I don't think it topped the Hungarian tests.
The Rocna will do well in the Chinese tests when you publish them.
 
Its obvious is it not, every country has different mud, that must be why the CQR and Bruce are still so highly regarded in Scotland. Our mud is thicker than yours, its certainly thick enough to float a fortress.
Way now to see how France get on at fortress Twickers, they will need to bring a spade with them to dig their way out of there but if they do they will be supreme and borrowing a bugel to crow about it.
 
I have to come clean here and admit I love anchor threads. If a few days passed with no threads I was going to raise the question about anchors like the Ultra with hollow shanks and how much effect this had on landing the right way up.
Yesterday I got a copy of one of the local boating rags. In it was an article on marine theft and no surprise one of the easiest and common items stolen was anchors. In the photos they showed a SS Ultra which are expensive. Perhaps we should find out which is the most common anchor stolen! Surely this would be an excellent indicator, better than rigged uTube videos.
 
There is just no knowing what is pulling those anchors, and if the conditions are equal.

To me, it looks as if the Sarca 'blade' is buried almost at right angle to the direction of pull, and is carrying the mud and shingle in front of it, so for a constant force on the chain, it moves faster.

The Rocna, OTOH, seems to dig in to the beach, and wants to go deeper and deeper, so moves slowly.

On that video 'evidence', I'd be happier with a Rocna, but surely the mags can afford to do a proper full test, with all the variables recorded and controlled. There must be any number of people happy to help ?
 
Brian@Fortress said:
The attached file has test results from 5 different types of bottoms, and it sure appears to be an independent test to me. Have a look.
Click to expand...

The tests Brian is providing come from an independent testing company audited by NATA, the same organisation that audit LR and ABS. The company (local, Australian) Brian is quoting are authorised by NATA (I checked) to test anchors, in the same way that LR and DNV are authorised to test anchors. When they audit tests they are paid by the anchor company, in the same way that when LR audit anchor tests they too are paid by the anchor testing company or the owner of the anchor (I checked with LR how it works). To suggest any auditing company, that is approved by NATA, is not independent is slanderous of both NATA and the specifc company making the audit. Rocna might think slander is a positive marketing tool - I find it unusual.

I have been in touch with Mr Neeves, who Rocna enjoy slandering, attack an independent journalist or anyone else who would find it expensive to take you to court. Rocna have attacked the Sailing Today article and one in MySailing with the same slander - I have a UK legal background, I find it distasteful that a company who want to be taken seriously find this a 21st Century management tool. The story is as follows. Mr Neeves was looking for a new anchor to cruise the west coast of Tasmania (Roaring Forties etc), he contacted Rocna, Manson and Anchor Right as being local and having good results from the West Marine tests, Rocna offered an anchor on long term loan (emails are apparently available - but buried (old computer), this was 2007(ish), maybe Mr Smith should check, with a view to some payment arrangement being developed when the cruise was over. The offer was declined, something to do with - no such thing as a free lunch. Manson simply directed Mr Neeves to their website. Anchor Right later suggested Mr Neeves attend their testing (overseen by that same independent testing authority illustrated by Brian), with other journalists and others from various Australian Marine, Fisheries and Safety organisations. As a result of the tests he ordered and bought an Anchor Right SARCA Excel for which he paid (he tells me he has confirmation of payment). He subsequently wrote an article for ST on his process for choosing an anchor - and surprisingly the anchor he bought was the one he thought was the best and that is what he described in the article - so unsurprisngly it endorses the Anchor Right SARCA Excel - is this now a crime!

Now if you find all this odd - would it not be more odd if he had bought or used one anchor and suggested the other was better, and vice versa. How do you condemn someone who says this is what we thought, this is where we put our money and we then went off to one of the wilder coasts of the world and we survived. Admitedly it will not make Rocna happy - but that's life. But its real life, not someone huddled over the computer keboard with no record of real sailing. Set yourself up as an expert - expect someone sometime to call your bluff -

- Craig how many sea miles do you put in? - if you answer or respond to this part of the thread at least answer this one question, with some foundation, or expect some ridicule. And if you do not respond to this specific question - we will draw our own conclusions.

For my part I feel some sympathy for Malo, he asked a simple question and was swamped by a torrent of invective. Surely Forums are meant to be informative and supportive from people with real expertise not a mechanism to vents ones frustations (we have a legal system in the UK that makes money out of that). I understand that in America a consortium of yachtsmen from a different Forum are putting together a 'group' purchase with Anchor Right to import Excels - might be worth a try here, in the UK.

And Djbangi - check with Whillans and/or Brown, though I might have the spellings wrong, I was younger then and before I took to the water.

Have a great day
 
sarabande said:
On that video 'evidence', I'd be happier with a Rocna, but surely the mags can afford to do a proper full test, with all the variables recorded and controlled. There must be any number of people happy to help ?
Click to expand...

This is why anchoring is so subjective a "proper test" is impossible.

Let's just look at why....

If a magazine tested the anchor out of the water, the magazine would get slated for a test that is a totally unrealistic of what any reader would experience.

If they do it in the water, no one can see what the anchor is doing unless we go somewhere with clear water, so that will have a different sea bed than we have in most of the UK.

The main problem with an anchor test is that you cannot get controlled conditions. Each part of an anchoring area will vary in density and material.

What you would need is an identical bit of beach for as many anchors as would like to be tested. Then you need to test each anchor at least 3 times. But of course as soon as you anchor there the bottom will be disturbed, so those conditions are now different.

Even if you could find this holy grail of perfectly reproducable sea bed, what about the different types of sea bed? Gravel, weed, rock, sand, brown east coast mud, black sikflex Scottish mud.

Then how does a magazine test them? A constant pull? An snatch test? A 180 degree pull and reset -at what speed? Or leave a boat there and if it's still there the next morning the anchor has passed. Each test would have to be done at least 3 times preferably 5.

So 6 different sea beds, 5 different pull tests, and 5 tests of each (6x5x5=150) do a "proper test" as you suggest, each anchor would have to be tested 150 times!

Then how does the magazine compare them with each other? Surface area? Weight? Suggested size? Price? A Rocna is more expensive than Fishemans, but if you take a fishermans with the same surface area, the Fishemans will be massive and weigh much more than a fortress.

So once you've decided on a criteria to compare anchors you can take the number of anchors available, times it by 150 and then see if you can still find "any number of people to help" :D

In reality most readers will experience the "will I be where I was in the morning" test and for the majority of readers any anchor that comes with the boat will suit their needs most of the time.

A proper test would be a great thing, but just think how boring the forum would be if everyone new the XXXX was the best anchor. It's far more fun to have x amount of posts a month on this subject.....Don't you agree???? :D
 
Last edited:
There are so many anchor posts of the form "I was having some trouble with my CQR/Fortress/Delta so I bought a Rocna". I admit to falling into this camp!

Just to try and add some balance, is there anyone out there who has gone in the opposite direction? :confused:

Richard

(Retreating to bunker!)
 
Snooks' overview is perhaps a little exaggerated but fundamentally on track.

The short answer to your question is that doing it properly requires a high budget, think well into 5 figures - a number in any case that well exceeds the value to any magazine of a 4 or 6 page article.

The pity is that this doesn't stop a lot of them doing it anyway to a cheap budget that does give them a return on their investment, and ending up publishing rubbish data that confuses and generally does more harm than good. This is more often the case than not.
 
RichardS said:
There are so many anchor posts of the form "I was having some trouble with my CQR/Fortress/Delta so I bought a Rocna". I admit to falling into this camp!

Just to try and add some balance, is there anyone out there who has gone in the opposite direction? :confused:
Click to expand...
In terms of individual feedback, the most valuable is surely that which is neutral and comparative. Most Rocna customers have in fact used other anchors, probably the same for Spade et al, so Rocna does gain very valuable and credible word-of-mouth, whereas most of the traditionalist views you see clinging to the 'old tried and true' styles do not have such comparative experience. Do you see many posts as above where the individual abandons the Rocna and goes back to the old choice?
 
RichardS said:
Just to try and add some balance, is there anyone out there who has gone in the opposite direction? :confused:
Richard
Click to expand...

Richard, from what seems to be the norm, when someone switches out their old anchor to a new anchor, the new anchor is larger & heavier, so the boater is likely to be more satisfied with the better performance of his new anchor based on that fact alone.

As a crude example, I rarely see or hear of a boater switching out a 35 lb anchor for another 35 lb anchor. They usually will size up to a 45 lb anchor or maybe even a much heavier model. So again, they are now using a larger & heavier anchor which should alone result in better performance.....and they aren't likely to have any reason to go back to the old smaller & lighter anchor they were using before.

I am sure someone will let me know if I am out to lunch with that assessment.

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors
 
Snooks,

I read your post and the post by Craig Smith with great interest. Our company owner was a lifelong boater and longtime engineer, and one of his companies designed propulsion systems for fighter plane ejector seats. If his product failed, the pilot died, plain & simple....and so when it came to designing & engineering a new anchor, which is obviously another important piece of safety equipment, he approached testing with the same reverence.

Long story short, he conducted thousands of tests in a wide variety of bottom conditions and with every type of anchor imaginable that was out on the market at that time. We still have a very impressive display of those anchors along with original Fortress prototypes at our factory.

Being young and with light years less experience than him, I would blow a gasket and scream fraud anytime there was an anchor test where our product did not perform well. He would remind me, and not very delicately, how incredibly difficult it was to conduct an anchor test, and for many of the reasons Snooks that you described.

No matter the results, he was adamant.....and forcefully so, that I complimented the magazine, or whoever, for their efforts to conduct a fair and honest anchor test.

Back in the late 80s, he spent a small fortune on two anchor tests that were held in Miami and San Francisco, which were representative of the best and worst bottom conditions (hard sand & soft mud). To eliminate any possibility of anyone ever saying that there was unfairness involved, he invited the WORLD to these tests, including the boating media, competitive anchor manufacturers, a US Navy soil mechanics & anchor design expert, and so on.

If there is one mistake that I think the boating magazines now make with their tests, it is that they don't also invite the world to attend, and I suspect that's because they don't want to deal with any interference or obvious bias.

Regarding the recent well-publicized West Marine test, which was reported in Sail, Power & MotorYacht, and Yachting Monthly magazines, I have a copy of the actual test notes and I can tell you that they went at this test with the best of intentions, but as Chuck Hawley of West Marine has told me, there were things that they wish they had done differently.

In these actual test notes under "Challenges" they have sections titled "What the heck is going on down there?" and "How do you report the data?" and "What's the best failure mode?".......so clearly they found out how daunting an anchor test can be.

And so further to your final point Snooks, posts for anchors will never be boring!

Safe anchoring,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top