Spade and Sword anchors

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> I value the contributions that both Alain and Craig make to the forum, though ideally not on the same thread. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that Craig is sometime quite low for answering some specific points like:

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> in one post you rubbish the Rocna's roll bar </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

...looks how the Sword works without the need of this cumbersome accessory???

Can you tell me what is the interest of it?? does it improve the holding?? does it reduce the manufacturing cost? does it improve the repartition of weight?


[/ QUOTE ]
 
Tests are never perfects..

But it's always interesting to compare different tests done in different conditions by different poeple.. one anchor could be #1 in some conditions and give less impressive results in different conditions..

Herewith is a summary of the soft mud test done by the U.S. ( advertisement free ) magazine "Practical Sailor" at 3:1 and 7:1 scope.

No one single test value has been modified ( like some manufaturers do! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif) but note the weight difference beween some models

Pract.jpg
 
[ QUOTE ]
But it's always interesting to compare different tests done in different conditions by different poeple.. one anchor could be #1 in some conditions and give less impressive results in different conditions..

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly - and this is why all tests must be taken with a pinch of salt. The XYZ, which did well in the Practical Sailor test, elicited this response from the YM team in their test "No matter how hard we tried, we couldn't get the XYZ to set in any of our tests".
 
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly - and this is why all tests must be taken with a pinch of salt. The XYZ, which did well in the Practical Sailor test, elicited this response from the YM team in their test "No matter how hard we tried, we couldn't get the XYZ to set in any of our tests".

[/ QUOTE ]The YM testing was on sand, the Powerboat Reports (not Practical Sailor) testing was in very soft mud. Anything will set in soft stuff, it is not a distinguishing test for setting ability.

There is more criticism of this testing here - I don't agree with all of it, but he has some valid points.
 
Yes - I realise it was mud as opposed to sand - the point I am making is that no two tests draw the same conclusions. There are just so many variables. For example, I can point to a 1999 Practical Sailor test that rated the CQR third behind the Spade and Bulwagga for holding in sand - ahead of both the Fortress and Danforth - which would seem to contradict the YM findings.
 
In fact the CQR in terms of "max before releasing" results in the SAIL/YM testing is just ahead of both the Fortress and Danforth, the Bulwagga in turn just ahead of the CQR... when the results are considered on a size-for-size basis. So the two tests in fact reinforce each other quite well!

However, the SAIL/YM testing went a bit further and considered behavior of the anchors while dragging, setting ability, etc, which showed the CQR up in a truer and more realistic light.

Furthermore, the CQR in the Practical Sailor 99 test was also by far the largest of the contenders and no account of this was made in the results. Both the Delta and Bruce tested were 22lbs (the CQR was 35lbs) and the writers made such illuminating comments as "the CQR (average holding: 583 lbs) outdid the Delta (average 496 lbs) by a fair margin". Quite ridiculous to be frank. On a per-lb basis the Delta was clearly superior, and a 35lb Delta would likely have given the Spade a run for its money - as it did in the SAIL/YM test!

The reason for inconsistent results is usually bad testing. Which is unfortunately commonplace. This should not however slander the occasional good testing, when it occurs - e.g. SAIL/YM.
 
[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> In the above PS / Powerboat Reports testing, the Spade 16lbs was aluminium and the same size as the others </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Craig!!! .. you could also have underlined that the results of the Spade have even been worse that the ones of the Rocna?? (scope 3:1)

Why are you only considering the Spade?? is it your worse competitor?? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Weights of the various anchors are from 13 lbs up to 47 lbs.. which is not (IMHO) very fair.. the Rocna, one of the worse at this test .. being one of the heaviest!!!..

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> In any case the Powerboat Reports testing was a farce </span> .

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:red"> Rocna New Generation Anchor Earns #1 Result. </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said: Tests are never perfects..

But it's always interesting to compare different tests done in different conditions by different poeple..

It is also interesting to note that " some " poeple have the tendency to interpret the results the way they like them..

If, by chance ( or accident?) they can modify the results and proudly inform the whole sainling community that they are ( by Far ) #1 ??? then the test is a good one..

if they are on the lower case.. then obviously the test is a farce!.. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Now then children, no more squabbling. Hylas, you're risking the good reputation you established with your mickey take. Craig, you're just digging yourself deeper in the s**t.

Now, to business.

It's interesting is to note the differences, or lack of difference, that scope made for the holding power for a given anchor.

For some anchors, going from 7:1 to 3:1 made no difference. For others, going down to 3:1 nearly halved their holding power.

My conclusion is simple. Anchoring techique is just as important as anchor type, so stop sweating solely about anchor type.
 
[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting is to note the differences, or lack of difference, that scope made for the holding power for a given anchor.

For some anchors, going from 7:1 to 3:1 made no difference. For others, going down to 3:1 nearly halved their holding power.

[/ QUOTE ]Or, in the case of the 06 Practical Sailor testing, increased it /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top