What size anchor...

Perhaps ,one of the leading anchor manufacturers would provide data to show an oversized anchor for your boat is dangerous ,(not only to our pocket)

It seems to me that it gives more confidence knowing that the holding power of a larger anchor is greater than the minimum sized recommended
 
Neeves said:
Personally I think it bad form to, deliberately, twist words and misquote, for example suggesting that one follows anchor makers recommendation being twisted into recommending use of micro anchors. But some people do have to find a pet hate and air it - without reason.

I think if you check carefully Pete you will find that I have been suggesting that anyone who needs an anchor should wait as the Epsilon has all the right credentials. I have suggested waiting until reviews come back - I have not been saying it is the perfect anchor. I think there is a difference, too subtle perhaps, in suggesting waiting for a few real life experiences (which we have not yet had) than suggesting its going to be THE answer.

I would continue to suggest - if you don't need a new anchor, wait. Epsilon has all the credentials - see how those who have bought the anchor comment and then make a decision.

Current testing of the anchor is largely by some form of yaw tests (which owners of Rocna anchors seem to discount). Remove the yaw and reverse pull tests of the Epsilon and there is little on which to base performance. No holding capacity - which is the basis on which most bought a Rocna - and they would say - has served them well.

I might also caution anyone basing a decision on how an anchor performs on how it looks. I recall Noelex repeatedly knocking convex anchors - look at the anchor now at the top of Panope's list, Excel, and the anchor at the bottom, Rocna. Quite a contradiction. I believe Jimmy Green will receive their first shipment of Excels soon, or they may already have arrived.

By the way Pete - I am still waiting for you to provide the data that supports the idea that big anchors are better than those of the recommended size. You will be suggesting next big anchors are better at short scope. Surely you have the evidence or did you just follow the loud noises without thought. I suspect you don't have any evidence - so your comment are only subjective.

But we can all jump to the wrong conclusions - show me I am wrong, embarrass me, by reporting the data. I am more than happy to eat humble pie.

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan
Click to expand...
I have to agree, Jonathan has only said to wait for the Epsilon to be reviewed before making any decision because (at that moment all we knew was) it was priced keenly.
As for small anchors, while I can intellectually see the reasoning, when I do anchor I prefer to throw the biggest lump of metal possible over the side (sorry J)
 
Last edited:
Bouba said:
As for small anchors, while I can intellectually see the reasoning, when I do anchor I prefer to throw the biggest lump of metal possible over the side (story J)
Click to expand...

No problems but my advise is very simple:

Anchors work (or should work) by design. Lumps of metal might work as a result of volume (or weight) and I have no argumentent that for security a big lump of metal will, all else being equal, be better than a small lump. When you look at design - you cannot judge an anchor by its looks (nor its weight).

I strongly advise you look at Jimmy Green's website and consider their new stock of the Excels, though they may not have arrived yet - but must be close. An alternative would be Viking (mail order) as it offers excellent hold from less weight (as they use HT steels which allow weight savings). These 2 anchors meet the needs of those that believe in concave (and even better) concave with a roll bar or those that believe in convex. I have this nasty feeling the Excels might be a bit pricey (there is always a downside to excellence :( ), The Vikings look competitive. Both will be significantly superior to a big lump of metal :). I have used both, a 15kg Excel and a 10kg Viking and use the aluminium version of the Excel (which weighs 8kg), same size as the 15kg steel version, as our primary. We cannot use the Viking, except by hand, as it fouls various structural elements on our bow when used with the bow roller.

In terms of weight - we cannot tell the difference between the same sized Spades aluminium or steel, nor Excels and I challenge anyone to find that a Fortress and the same sized Danforth - that the Fortress at half the weight is not as good.

For those who look for second opinions - AAC aka Morgans Cloud gave Excel a good review - Viking has not yet been sufficiently widely used to offer much added commendation - but it held its head up under the Panope protocol.

I would be happy with the recommendations of the relevant manufacturer with regards to size, Anchor Right or Viking Anchors.

Your other option, as I recently mentioned - wait for further feed back from people who actually use an Epsilon in real life - last I looked it was priced well, similar to the Viking. A number of people seem to have bought the Epsilon already, much to my surprise (I'm cautious and would have waited). I am sure we will learn more before your summer arrives. Be patient :)

I don't believe any of these anchors, Excel, Viking nor Epsilon is 'perfect' and I would suggest consideration be given to carrying a Fortress for use in soupy muds. I would not use our Excel in soupy mud - complete waste of time (been there, done that). But I strongly recommend anyone who strays even a short distance from the home base - carry a second anchor anyway.

Now peruse this thread

Dragging of anchors

and find anyone who complained their new gen anchor dragged - because it was too small.

There is no doubt that if you believe in 'weight' then buying a bigger anchor than necessary, of a reasonable design, will allow you to sleep more soundly - but that's complacency .... not data

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan
 
Neeves said:
No problems but my advise is very simple:

Anchors work (or should work) by design. Lumps of metal might work as a result of volume (or weight) and I have no argumentent that for security a big lump of metal will, all else being equal, be better than a small lump. When you look at design - you cannot judge an anchor by its looks (nor its weight).

I strongly advise you look at Jimmy Green's website and consider their new stock of the Excels, though they may not have arrived yet - but must be close. An alternative would be Viking (mail order) as it offers excellent hold from less weight (as they use HT steels which allow weight savings). These 2 anchors meet the needs of those that believe in concave (and even better) concave with a roll bar or those that believe in convex. I have this nasty feeling the Excels might be a bit pricey (there is always a downside to excellence :( ), The Vikings look competitive. Both will be significantly superior to a big lump of metal :). I have used both, a 15kg Excel and a 10kg Viking and use the aluminium version of the Excel (which weighs 8kg), same size as the 15kg steel version, as our primary. We cannot use the Viking, except by hand, as it fouls various structural elements on our bow when used with the bow roller.

In terms of weight - we cannot tell the difference between the same sized Spades aluminium or steel, nor Excels and I challenge anyone to find that a Fortress and the same sized Danforth - that the Fortress at half the weight is not as good.

For those who look for second opinions - AAC aka Morgans Cloud gave Excel a good review - Viking has not yet been sufficiently widely used to offer much added commendation - but it held its head up under the Panope protocol.

I would be happy with the recommendations of the relevant manufacturer with regards to size, Anchor Right or Viking Anchors.

Your other option, as I recently mentioned - wait for further feed back from people who actually use an Epsilon in real life - last I looked it was priced well, similar to the Viking. A number of people seem to have bought the Epsilon already, much to my surprise (I'm cautious and would have waited). I am sure we will learn more before your summer arrives. Be patient :)

I don't believe any of these anchors, Excel, Viking nor Epsilon is 'perfect' and I would suggest consideration be given to carrying a Fortress for use in soupy muds. I would not use our Excel in soupy mud - complete waste of time (been there, done that). But I strongly recommend anyone who strays even a short distance from the home base - carry a second anchor anyway.

Now peruse this thread

Dragging of anchors

and find anyone who complained their new gen anchor dragged - because it was too small.

There is no doubt that if you believe in 'weight' then buying a bigger anchor than necessary, of a reasonable design, will allow you to sleep more soundly - but that's complacency .... not data

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan
Click to expand...
Yes, before we had weight (big stone with a hole for the rode) then we had design with weight. Now we have design instead of weight, but are we ready?
 
Bouba said:
Yes, before we had weight (big stone with a hole for the rode) then we had design with weight. Now we have design instead of weight, but are we ready?
Click to expand...

Demonstrably

No

But why would anchor makers worry. With the current mantra that 'bigger is better' they have a higher turnover and maybe higher margins. Where is the incentive? This is free marketing to 'spend more'.

Makers of lightweight anchors suffer, primarily Fortress, but also Spade, Anchor Right (with their aluminium models) and Viking who have chosen to use HT steel to allow using less steel. If anchor design does not develop - we have ourselves to blame. The opportunity is there - but why bother - we are wedded to weight

Find me another product in the marine industry with this, unquestioning, support to spend more money on a product. The anchor makers have no need to be proactive - just let the market do the work.

My initial thoughts are that anchor threads simply engender fear and it is fear that is the driver.

Jonathan
 
I have never said bigger is better, whatever better is,. However, I think you are right, a bigger anchor will have a higher holding force on a short scope compared to a smaller anchor. Heavier anchor with greater surface area; what's not to like? Gosh someone might even come up with the expression of buying one so big people even laugh at you, then you know you have the right size :)

Personally I tend to rely on what the manufacturers recommendations when sizing an anchor. Seems to have worked so far, though I did ignore the Viking which appears very small, 5.7kg for a 30ft yacht :oops: That said if people want a small anchor and are happy with them, that's fine by me. Indeed I think you are one of the micro anchor fanatics. You just have to accept other sailors have a more conservative view or even erring on the side of caution and choosing a larger size. You won't change peoples minds, so I suggest you give up trying.

Interesting to see Amazon are selling Vulcan's at 62% of the local chandlers prices, so I bought one after watching Steve's video. It would appear I am not the only one, two more have appeared in the yacht club in the past couple of weeks.
 
Last edited:
Just out of interest, here is an Excel sizing chart. The first thing to notice is that these are not small anchors to length. The second thing is that there is also a boat displacement column, since my boat is heavy for its length (being a trawler style motor boat), I have to assume that I should go for the displacement recommendation anchor. This ends up with quite a heavy anchor
 
The Excel sizes looks quite sensible for the smaller yachts around 30ft. Compare them with the Viking recommendations. at 30ft and say 5T.

Pete

Viking Anchor.jpgViking Anchor.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bouba said:
They certainly recommend a very light anchor, but is it the same size as it’s heavier counterparts, because all the modern anchor designs are superficially the same
Click to expand...

Good question, for say a 30ft 5T yacht Viking recommend a No 7 which has a blade area called "ground contact surface" of 513 cm2. By comparison Rocna recommend a 10 which has a blade area of 795 cm2, or the Vulcan 12 with 880 cm2.

Pete
 
The Viking 10kg is the same size as a Mantus 15kg or a bit bigger than a Excel 15kg or Spade 15kg (most of Mantus weight is in the fluke, Spade and Excel sacrifice some weight to ballast (which is similar for both). Interestingly the ballast of a 15kg Rocna is similar to a 15kg Excel or Spade (but the Rocna ballast less focussed, hence the roll bar).

The theory is that its surface area of the fluke that produces the hold so if two flukes of the same size are buried to the same depth in the same seabed they should have a similar hold. In practice its a bit more complex because when we compare we have to consider what we 'do' with ballast chambers, roll bars, shank thickness, fluke thickness etc

For some of this think of digging your garden - is it easier to dig a deep hole in compacted soil with a large spade or a small one. Is it easier to dig with a chunky spade or a thin bladed one.

Because Viking has a very thin fluke you can bury it more deeply and/or more easily than the Mantus. Additionally as Mantus sets with a shallow trajectory, because the crown is too far forward, it is difficult to set them both to the same depth, I've tried and actually cannot do it. The Viking 10kg ends up with a very high hold around twice that of a Mantus, but similar to Spade and Excel. If you take a Fortress and Danforth of the same dimensions they should have the same hold - but the Danforth is made from a thicker plate with a rough surface (friction) and the Fortress always develops more hold., because it sets more deeply.

It is very difficult to compare, ostensibly similar anchors simply because they behave differently - you have to accept you cannot actually compare like with like but you can compare similar weights (ignore how they set) and simply look at the developed Ultimate hold, or compare similar surface areas and compare that with Ultimate hold. Many manufacturers do not quote area - so the easy comparison is weight vs hold. It is also difficult to compare area - how do you measure the surface area, say, of a Supreme (or at the extreme a Bruce) against a Spade or Fortress. How do you factor in the roll bar, which detracts from diving (because it has 'volume') but once locked up contributes to hold. It is so much easier just to weight an anchor - everyone understands the data. Surface area is misleading unless it is defined - precisely

Small changes have a huge impact. Look at a Mantus and a Viking - they look similar - but Viking develops almost twice the hold (for the same fluke area). So which do you want the lightweight Viking or the heavy Mantus? You can have a higher Ultimate hold by going bigger - but using the Mantus/Viking example the Mantus will be quite large, plenty to laugh about (and heavy). So - don't quote me - but if you want a hold of 2,000kg you will need say a 20kg Mantus or a 10kg Viking. The Viking (and 15kg Excel and Spade) will set and lock up in about half the distance of a Mantus - though the holds would be similar.

If we take Pete's example - the thin fluke of the Viking allows it to dive more deeply into high shear strength seabed, the fluke is very thin. The leading edge of a Rocna is really chunky, it resists diving. The Vulcan has a huge ballast chamber. Think of cutting cheese - is it easier with a wire or a big chinky meat cleaver. So ..... Bec case the Viking dives deeply and easily it develops hold, some of the hold of the Rocna is because the toe plate is a big lump of steel plate.

Sharpening chunky plate helps, initially - but the seabed needs still to be parted to allow the chunk bit to penetrate.

To comment to Pete on short rode.

To have a better hold at short scope you would need to set the anchor with a long rode to maximise depth and only then shorten the rode. If you set with a short scope the trajectory will be shallow, or more shallow than with a long rode, and to achieve hold you need to get depth (because shear strength of the seabed increases with square of depth). The more shallow the trajectory the longer the setting distance and the more chance you will foul the anchor, seaweed, waterlogged wood, shell.

We have a large Classification Society approved mooring for superyachts about 1nm from our mooring, installed by our mooring contractor. It is made up of 3 x 1.5t Danforth specially made with a low fluke.seabed angle 22 degrees (Mantus is 16 degrees, most anchors have an angle of 30 degrees). They are set with a central riser. The shallow trajectory has been used as it offers hold in the horizontal - but is easier to retrieve for servicing (so low hold at short scope).

When Fortress conducted their soft mud tests recently at Chesapeake they measure the hold accurately but estimated that the retrieval tensions were similar to the hold, flukes set at 45 degrees - this has some logic.

If you look at oil rig anchors - they are all made now from thin plate, the anchors are designed such that the engineering gives them strength. There is no superfluous weight. Our anchors are tending toward this, one reason for the folds of the Danforth and Fortress (also the Mantus and Rocna). The ballast chamber of the Excel and Spade provide strength to the toe. Viking have gone a step further and used strong steel, instead of weight.

The other factor is ---- money. If you look at cost vs weight its an invalid comparison - you should really look at cost vs hold. Its easy to say cost does not come into the equation because safety is more important than cost. This is true only so far. For two anchors of the same hold the better one, or the one more likely to be chosen is the cheaper one (all else being equal). Frankly I see no reason to buy an Excel if the Vulcan has the same hold for a similar weight and the Vulcan cheaper (I've never tested a Vulcan - I just use it as an example).

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
It might merit some thought.

Our current batch of anchors , minus some exceptions, were tested in the 'famous' 2006 anchor test reported in YM, see link below. There have been subsequent tests (Voile et Voileurs, see link below) with similar results. Up until recently these tests, and the way they were conducted, were our means to compare anchors. These tests were all about holding capacity. Since then Morgan's Cloud removed their recommendation for Rocna and Manson's Surpreme due to accidents, I think primarily in the Med, where these anchors tripped and being clogged did not re-set and yachts (one of which was very large) ended up on beaches. This recommendation was analysed in more detail in Practical Sailor, see link below, about 10/15 years ago - and more recently by the Panope vids.

In general most people have ignored the clogging results.

But historically anchors were chosen by their holding capacity, that's how Spade, Ultra, Excel, Super SARCA, Rocna, Supreme, Knox have been sold - if they did not have high hold - they did not come to market. Hold has stood us in good stead - Rocna et all - have now been fine tuned (accepted or not) but hold has been a reliable measure.

We now have prominent testing where no hold data is provided but with a focus on tripping and resetting. The fundamentals upon which Morgan's Cloud, ourselves and many many others (in fact virtually anyone who bought 'modern' anchor since 2006 and, say before 2021) is now being ignored - yet the choices made based on hold have, largely, proven reliable.

My guess is (and I know I should not guess) that if you look at the tripping data there are fundamental design issues causing the problem (pronounced concave with a roll bar, maybe a small diameter roll bar). It is easy to strip those anchors out with that characteristic - so how do you differentiate the rest, Spade, Vulcan, Excel, Super SARCA, Mantus, Viking, Kobra, Ultra........Epsilon.........? and there will be more (or at least I hope so).

Our, personal, choice has developed over time - we cannot use roll bar anchors they do not fit, which rules out Super SARCA, Mantus, Viking, we want light weight (which means aluminium, so Spade, Excel (and Fortress). We rule out Mantus also because it has low hold and the Super SARCA because of its tripping slot. Our hope is that Viking come to the party with a High Tensile non-roll bar model.

I am very cautious of some tripping data because it is given too much weight (the market does not think it is a critical issue given the success of Rocna) - so I am left with ....... hold. Helped as it is easily possible to accept the tripping data - exclude those anchors and still be left with a robust choice of anchors with high hold

Jonathan

Some of these come from an anchor makers website, specifically Spade, but I do not think there has been any 'editing'

https://newcontent.westmarine.com/content/documents/pdfs/WestAdvisor/2006-Anchor-Tests.pdf

Press - Spade Anchor UK - High Performance Anchor

Yachting Monthly -Anchor Test Nov09 - Sea Tech and Fun - Spade - PDF Catalogs | Documentation | Boating Brochures

Anchor Resetting Tests | Practical Sailor

I would have added Morgan's Cloud aka AAC comments but it is behind a paywall, to which I have no access. This is there teaser for the Excel

SARCA Excel Anchor—A Real World Test


I have added the Fortress Chesapeake mud tests - because they underline, seabed matters. Fortress chose the location specifically to show the anchor at its best, but it also shows some other anchors at their worst (and I don't think Fortress knew how each would work, or not). The Excel was not included in the Fortress tests (they did not want to include it as it might have given the anchor some 'credibility' - but I can confirm in soupy mud it is pretty useless, like its peers. If we have a soupy mud bottom - we don't think about it but deploy the FX 37 by hand. There is no perfect anchor.

Chesapeake Bay Anchor Test - The World's Best Anchors!
 
Last edited:
Neeves said:
The other factor is ---- money. If you look at cost vs weight its an invalid comparison - you should really look at cost vs hold. Its easy to say cost does not come into the equation because safety is more important than cost. This is true only so far. For two anchors of the same hold the better one, or the one more likely to be chosen is the cheaper one (all else being equal). Frankly I see no reason to buy an Excel if the Vulcan has the same hold for a similar weight and the Vulcan cheaper (I've never tested a Vulcan - I just use it as an example). Jonathan
Click to expand...

At last something we agree on, praise the lord :) Morgans Cloud are staunchly pro Spade regardless of the cost. That's fine if there isn't a budget, but for most of us £545 for a 15kg Spade or £270 for a 12kg Vulcan would be a fairly straight forward decision.

Pete
 
Pete7 said:
At last something we agree on, praise the lord :) Morgans Cloud are staunchly pro Spade regardless of the cost. That's fine if there isn't a budget, but for most of us £545 for a 15kg Spade or £270 for a 12kg Vulcan would be a fairly straight forward decision.

Pete
Click to expand...

I totally agree. The top anchors have very similar characteristics and the sizes recommended by the different manufacturers are similar, if not identical. The choice then comes down to other factors, does it fit (as some roll bar anchor will not fit), is it available in a chandler near you (and if it has to be delivered by courier (how much does it cost for delivery) and very importantly COST. As you underline there is little reason to spend twice as much for identical performance especially when there are doubts. In terms of Spade vs Vulcan - I have not seen independent test protocols for Vulcan but the shank and fluke construction of the Vulcan is vastly superior and more desirable than that of Spade (which is now 30 years out of date in terms of construction) - if performance were to be similar there is no question.

All credit, Spade spawned Rocna, Ultra and Vulcan - but each of them have added advantageous characteristics. There has been no improvement to Spade that might address some of the issues that discourage its market penetration (cost being but one). I think its a great anchor but part of our 'loyalty' is because it is offered in aluminium.

To me Morgan's Cloud loyalty to Spade detracts from their messages - they completely ignore the advances in construction methods, and cost savings, in favour of an anchor whose very expensive production method has not changed in over 30 years. You would not buy a new yacht based on 1990s construction, another chart plotter kept in a cupboard from the 1990's, nor foul weather gear - why buy an anchor of that vintage.

Jonathan
 
Pete7 said:
At last something we agree on, praise the lord :) Morgans Cloud are staunchly pro Spade regardless of the cost. That's fine if there isn't a budget, but for most of us £545 for a 15kg Spade or £270 for a 12kg Vulcan would be a fairly straight forward decision.

Pete
Click to expand...
If you plan to liveaboard on the hook for the next 10 years then the difference in cost is negligible
 
My, major, problem with Vulcan is that I have seen no independent testing of its holding capacity nor integrity. They thought it necessary to go through Classification Society testing for Rocna ( and then screwed it up). If it was necessary for Rocna, why not Vulcan? I would not touch a Vulcan, at any price, without a reliable comparison with, well Spade, Excel even Epsilon. Compare like with like, Spade vs Excel (though I suspect they might be similarly priced) - then I would expect price to come into the decision making.

Epsilon has the same credentials as Spade and Excel - but I still suggest caution and patience and wait to see how people like it. There is mention, in YBW, of problems with retrieval (not something I've ever tested for) - but something that might tip the balance of choice.

Mr Cassandra - I'm actually not aware of any anchor that is designed to be lifted by hand, small anchors can be lifted by hand but the actual design usually encompasses identical anchors - except they are bigger (and heavier). I'd actually hate to think an anchor maker designed a an anchor to be lifted by hand and then without further thought scaled it for a yacht. I think grapnel anchors and the Cooper dinghy anchor are designed to be lifted by hand.....

I think you will find that most racing yachts, that are performance focussed, tend to carry Fortress anchors, because they are light. Possibly you can advise why lightweight anchors of the same or similar design might not be as effective as heavy anchors. I think you will find an aluminium Excel is as good as the steel Excel and a Fortress actually better than a Danforth.

But lightweight anchors paired with smaller chain allows a smaller windlass which uses less power so smaller cables, so you have less need for a large battery bank, etc - but if you have a bulging wallet - yes - who cares.

Saving weight, specially in the ends, allows for a faster and more comfortable yacht - or so owners of racing yachts will tell you.

Jonathan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

R
Moving on.
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
rotrax
R
S
What are these for?
Replies
13
Views
687
Refueler
Refueler
R
My boat trip hopefully in May Around Scotland
2 3
Replies
54
Views
1K
ProDave
ProDave

Share this page

Top