Normally I have very little patience for long youtube videos. Most videos that exceed 10 minutes I skim through if I ever actually try to watch them. But I watch your anchor tests from start to finish all the way through and I was shocked to see that this one was 53 minutes long. Your anchor tests are a great service to the boating community. Thank you for all the effort you put into them.
Panope SV is the benchmark for anchor testing right now! I am in the process of replacing a 44 Delta for a 55 Vulcan and these videos are lightening my way in the decision making. 30 years sailing and never seen such a comprehensive unbiased anchor testing program. From Spain, keep it up, Steve!
I liked appreciated the effort you put into this. I would really have liked to have seen the test conducted with anchor chain, which is the normal way an anchor is set up. The weight of the anchor chain I would think would give some different results. I understand the issue with the windlass, so maybe get a boat with a working windlass and do the test over a few days to give a more real-life result.
In the follow-up veering test using heavy chain, the ranking of the anchors did not change. Keep in mind that an all chain rode at short scope can easily have a WORSE angle of pull at the anchor than an all rope rode (at longer scopes).
Superb video and testing Steve, well done! Greetings from beautiful sunny and warm Sydney, Australia. (Yes, happy to see the Sarca Excel perform so well!)
Great testing videos. But this one is moot for me since I have 300 feet of chain. My assumption would be a drastically different result with most of these anchors sporting the proper scope of chain. I am equipped with a 55# Mantis M1, 300 feet of 5/16" chain and a Lewmar windlass on a 40' sailboat. Thank you for all the time you spend doing these tests. :)
Im Glad you did it this way, when I bought my boat, it only had a 200' ⁹/16 rode and a 12lb Danforth, after sailing from Tampa to Panama city about dec 1st, and anchoring in 20-30 kt winds I bent the Danforth it up ended under a rock or something idk, so I found a 14lb fortress anchor for cheap and a 22lb cqr, I believe I will be finding an excel anchor thanks ... also I am adding about 30' of chain as I font have a windless either, my boat is 10k lbs.
As a newbie to sailing and anchoring and looking to improve on my current 45lb Bruce anchor, I find these videos extremely fascinating. Would really like to see the Mantus M2 in testing also
Very interested to see about the wire rode findings! We have a large crosby shackle followed by 4 links of 12mm change attached to a kong swivel and then 100m of 10mm chain. That first meter of shackle, updated chain and swivel I’m sure must be hard to bury as you say. That said we’ve never dragged in over 4 years of using our Spade and we’ve anchored hundreds of times. I suppose I’d need to be confident that the wire attached to the anchor in a way that would be as strong as the chain and didn’t form a weak link in the system.
Thanks for some really good tests. I am "absolutely certain" that the anchors will perform better with e.g. 1 meter of vire between anchor and chain. Especially the little ones. I have thought for myself about the idea and also whether to go down in size on the Shackles or use a rapide links. The best thing would probably be to put the virer directly in the anchor, but it's a little impractical. Regarding mudfauling, I'm almost certain that painting the "shovel" on the anchor with smooth paint, preferably teflon, could alleviate the problem... Just for inspiration.
Thank You for a interesting test. We sail around with a 18kg (35 pound) CQR and a 20 kg (40 pound) Mantus with roll bar. The best we can do is to use both at the same time with 90 meters of chain. 😬
I agree. Excellent service, thanks very much for all your hard work, but I can't see that these results count for anything when they only use a rope rode - we all know that weight of chain is important.
In my follow up to this video, I conducted similar testing using a very heavy chain. The ranking of the anchors did not change. The "rope only" test is without question, a good comparison test between the anchors.
Fascinating stuff. I was very interested in that you tested the Knox, as that's my primary anchor. I was then disappointed with it's performance in the test. I't would be interesting to see how it performs in soft mud, since that's what most of my anchoring area is.
I believe the rollbar inhibits the seabed from moving past the anchor. At first, this might seem like a good thing, and perhaps ADDS holding power. But as force increases, the seabed that is packed in front of the roll bar shears away (or becomes disconnected) from the surrounding seabed. This new anchor/seabed combination (blob) has little ability to remain engaged. For 'non-cohesive' seabeds like clean sand, this phenomenon will not occur and the anchor may continue to dive deeply into the seabed and produce high holding power.
@@flygoodwin Thanks for the answer. It was interesting to see how the different anchors performed in this test. We have used Rocna for several years, and have never experienced it dragging like this (or not setting). I assume some perticular seabed conditions can be a challenge, but it does not seem like a common problem in most conditions. Anyways, we sleep well using our Rocna, but are now aware that it has a couple of shortcomings. If we were to buy a new anchor today, we'd consider an Ultra anchor. It looks like a very good allround performer. Thanks for all the tests you make! 👍
I don’t have an anchor preference because I don’t have a boat...yet. I appreciate your extension testing, but I thought much of the anchors behavior is based on the weight of the anchor chain attached to the shaft. I understand your limitations, so maybe we can start a crowd funding for a new windless. :) Do you think a chain rode would make a significant difference on some anchors? Thanks again.
I would be interested to see how a box anchor woud behave, given the claim of 2:1 scope and all nylon rod? I have a 20 footer and sail along a lot over mangrove muddy bottom. Are they any good, or just a fad!!!
Hello and thank you for your very complete tests that we cannot see anywhere However, it would be interesting to have other tests on sands of different natures, such as harder or more muddy sand etc. I remember a video in the gravel, very interesting Are Sue worth the last generation anchors in hard sand? Do they sink as well? On the other hand, I am French and not familiar with the "lbs" measurement. What is it? Compared to KG, what is the difference? double, half? Bravo again and to the pleasure of a future video Frederick
Thanks Frederic. Unfortunately, "hard sand" does not seem to exist in my part of the world. Perhaps I will need to travel to another part of the world. "lbs." is an abbreviation for "pounds". The conversion is 2.2 lbs./Kg. Cheers.
Funny how different the results are that I get in the California delta. The fortress is next to worthless but great at pulling up a salad ball and will never reset. The “genuine” Bruce claw has never failed but all clones are worthless. Since I can’t find another original Bruce the Delta anchor works extremely well if not better and it’s very economical priced. What the bottom is, makes anchor selection important.
Nice work, Steve, and very useful info for Puget Sound sailors, particularly. Question: do you have any thoughts on anchor alarms? I'm struggling to find one that I trust even after using Vesper's WatchMate and the anchor alarm included on my B&G Zeus chartplotter. They all seem to be low-function afterthoughts to the device's main purpose, and I want an alarm that is designed with the features needed to immediately alert me should my ground tackle fail to hold. A test of anchor alarms done with your usual level of thoroughness would be great!
I'm probably not the best person to evaluate electronics as I am a bit of a wannabe Luddite. That said, I use "Drag Queen" (free app) on android devices and also use the built-in anchor alarm of a Garmin 740 chart plotter. I'm sure these are antiquated by today's standards, but they seem to do the job (make noise when boat travels beyond a set boundary).
Good interesting tests but anchors need a segment of chain by design, so you should conduct the same test with 6-10’ of chain to each anchor. Also make the chain the appropriate size expected for each anchor. Like 1/4” for the 17# but say 5/16” or 3/8” for the larger anchors.
That might seem logical, but in fact it's not. This an anchor test' to see what the anchor is doing not what the weight of the chain is doing. This test was at 7-1 scope which would replicate chain at a shorter more standard scope of 4-1.
That might seem logical, but in fact it's not. This is an anchor test to see what the anchor is doing, not what the weight of the chain is doing. This test was at run 7-1 scope which would replicate chain at a shorter more standard scope of say 4-1. It also showed that without the wide resistance of the chain some shanks went deeper with just rode, the opposite of what you would expect, but reflects the design principle of those anchors.
@@nav1269 You have just confirmed the invalidity of the test by saying that some shanks went deeper with just rode. This can never happen in a real life scenario as the use of chain is mandatory. I have never seen some of the anchors behave like in this test in real life situations. I suspect the ground was incredibly soft and porous and some anchors performed better in this substrate without chain.
@@robferenczi3024 Ignore these tests at your own peril, I have seen 2 boats drag on to coral reefs in Indonesia in the last year. They had plenty of chain out and anchors that matched the ones that performed poorly in these and his previous tests. Based on the series he did 4 years ago, I decided I would replace my CQR with one of his top 3, being in Australia, it was easy to get a Sarca Excel. Now I rarely Anchor over 3-1 scope, unless its bad weather and we never move. 18 months at anchor in remote areas. I have a Bruce and Fortress as spares they are good anchors in the right conditions but the Excel works in all.
@@nav1269 I can agree using my personal practical experience that the CQR is not a very good anchor. But your tests also showed some very strange behaviour from some of the modern anchors like the Rocna. I replaced my CQR with a Rocna 10 years ago and after using it extensively, with minimum scope, I cannot agree with your test findings. But I do appreciate the effort you put into these tests.
Gypsy, I am not familiar with the process of "clipping" a RUclips video. I will look into it. I did consider uploading each segment as it's own separate RUclips video, but I felt that for comparison purposes, it was better to present all-in-one.
@@flygoodwin If you put timecodes into the description with the anchor name (like "41:00 - Genuine CQR") it will automatically divide the video up into marked sections that you can see in the timeline, and access directly. Probably one of the coolest new features on youtube.
Actually, the Rocna (unmodified) performed quite well in my "soft mud", "cobblestone" and "sand and gravel" test sites. It is only in this "sandy mud" test site that the Rocna performed poorly. I do conduct a disproportionate amount of testing in this "sandy mud" site, because I believe it is the most common substrate of my cruising area - the Salish Sea.
I ditched my fortress anchor after dragging around in an overnight wind event. I heard many "swear" buy it in article and sailing channels (now wondering if they were "paid" endorsements). I was out with my Rocna knowing that the overnight would be 30 knots as a test. I remember at midnight it was so windy that I thought I should out more scope out. The rode was so taught, I had trouble pulling the 24' Quickstep (only 4,500 lb) forward with the rode to be able to loosen the rode from the clear.. I'm Downeast and was likely in a mud flat. Held great and even managed to get a decent night's sleep. Rocna 10.
Thanks for your reply. Also, I may have missed it. Could you direct me to one of your vids that describes the issues with mud clinging to the flukes and why this is bad for holding. It seems counterintuitive. If the mud it sticking to the flukes, I would think that is good and desired. I hear comments, oh no, I see mud stuck to the anchor. And where there is no mud upon retrieval, that is a good sign (?)
@@Dave-SailsAway check out my anchor test videos #67 and #87 for an introduction into my investigations into the topic of seabed adhesion to anchors. I now have little doubt that the key to high holding power is Deep Penetration. To achieve this, the anchor must "slide" underneath the seabed and not "stick" to it.
It would be great to have the same test in gravel/rocks, to know the overall best anchor. I also think that a bit of chain would be more real world test. I think that in gravel the Bruce is not as bad, and there would be surprises.
We are getting ready to cruise in the Salish Sea. Our primary anchor is a 110# Bruce with 3/8" chain. Our secondary anchor is a 60# CQR. The boat is a trawler with about 54,000lbs displacement. Do you think the Bruce is the right anchor for the PNW? After watching your videos I'm not so sure.
More than a few knowledgeable people have said that the larger (60lb +) Bruce anchors perform disproportionately better than the Smaller Bruce anchors. If true, then a 110# Bruce Sounds pretty good to me. I'd love to (somehow) test that theory.
Hi Steve, please forgive my ignorance, you have most likely explained it in one of your earlier videos: How do you determine the load acting on the anchor? Do you use a load cell in the rode?
No worries Mathias, Prior to testing the anchors, I measured the "bollard pull" of the test boat while tied to a dock. Pull numbers where recorded across the RPM range of the engine. During the actual anchor tests, RPM (and therefore pulling force) is noted. See my video "Anchor Test Equipment Modifications".
OK, thanks! I guess I need to watch that video as well... :) During that calibration, did you also maintain a 7:1 scope of you attachment to the dock? I guess at that scope it does not matter that much, but still curious.
@@mathiaswagner6457 During dockside calibration, load was horizontal. Feel free to add a few percent to the pull numbers if you wish. By my way of thinking the real value of my numbers is in making comparisons between the various anchors in the test.
Just saw the video. Yes, more or less horizontal, so the numbers would have to be recalibrated a bit. But as you say, the relative values are what matters. If I wanted to be very picky, I would say that as you increase the RPM, without actually moving, you would get more and more tilt into your vessel, as the anchor will drag the stern downwards. This tilt then makes for a different thrust angle of your outboarder, and again changes things slightly. This makes for a non-linear correction factor. And finally, since your vessel was close to the pontoon when doing the calibration, there will be some effect due to the water streaming against the pontoon and not being able to flow away as freely as in the open. All this will modify the absolute values somewhat, but likely all within the normal margin of error, anyway. It does not take away how great and valuable all these tests are! Thanks a bunch! My personal takeaway is that my choice of a Spade X160 was not so bad, after all. :) But I should have chosen an even bigger brother of it!
I agree with the people saying it is not a proper test without the chain and proper length rode. I'm assuming these anchors are designed around this. I'm surprised you haven't had a lower performing manufacturer complain yet...This is a lot of work to go through for an inproper test. Done right, this would be an awesome video.
Hi. I find this test Interesting , and i now want to purchase the best preforming ( little) anger. U call it “”( steel xl 17 pound). If I weight steel xl anger on Google, I get a lot if different shapes and products. How do I find the one ? Do u have more specific data on thus little 17p steel xl ? Regards Jens DK
Greetings Jens, The anchor that you are referring to is a SARCA EXCEL made by the ANCHOR RIGHT company of Australia. I am not sure if they have distribution in Europe, but I believe they will ship anchors world wide. I have conducted other testing of the 17 pound EXCEL and it is indeed a very fine anchor in many seabeds. However, it performs poorly in my "soft mud" seabed. Sea my most recent video here: ruclips.net/video/wKAt4vt74kM/видео.html
Olá tenho uma Bruce 5K mais 3 mts de corrente calibrada com girador entre cabo e corrente, acha suficente para um MacGregor 26 em solo as vezes em areia, as vezes em solo barrento. Obrigado
Very disappointed with your test of the Rocna 45. You modified the anchor and as a result, the anchor tested was not a Rocna 45. You should rename it to a Stephen 45. I suspect that the flare that you straightened on the Rocna may actually serve as a brake. Yes, there may be problem with sediment buildup, but that is true on most if not all anchors. On some of the anchors that come out clean, it may be that they cleaned themselves on the way up from the bottom. Love the videos, however, I think that you seem to have a bias against Rocna. Of course, I'm biased because I have a Rocna 45 and a Delta 35.
The Rocna was tested in this seabed prior to the modifications and it was found to have much less holding power than needed to begin the veering test. As to any bias that I may have, I wonder what the motivation might be? No bias against the Rocna company - I show thier Vulcan anchor performing wonderfully. No bias against roll bar anchors - I have shown the roll bar anchors (including the Rocna) outperforming non-rollbar. anchors in other seabeds/tests. No bias against the gentleman who owns my Rocna test specimen - he was a very generous (and trusting) stranger who reached out to me with the intent of furthering these tests. The reality is that the rollbar anchors (modified or not) have shortcomings in this particular seabed.
@@flygoodwin Thank you for the timely response. As you mentioned, they rode used on this test is a nylon line. Could that have made difference in your test results and conclusions as opposed to the use of an all chain rode? In other words, if we use an all chain rode, will our results be different from those in this test.
All chain would have most likely helped the performance of all the anchors assuming that the same depth and scope (7 to 1) was used. If all chain was used at the same depth but with 3.5 to 1 scope, then the performance of all the anchors may have been degraded due to catenary reduction. (see my "Anchor Chain Catenary" video). Note that during previous testing in this same seabed using ALL CHAIN the UNMODIFIED Rocna had a maximum holding power of about 600 lbs. The resulting rode "angle of pull" at the anchor would have been roughly equivalent to a ROPE ONLY rode of 7 to 1 scope.
I never said it was sub par I think it's great for people like me who don't have a windlass... because I don't currently have any chain, but plan to add about 50' lol
Not a very realistic test, I would say. The rule of thumb I've learned as a captain, is that your chain is your actual anchor. The boat is "riding" and pulling on that. The anchor, as we love to call it, is the device of preventing your anchor, (chain), from slipping. If the spesifications demand a 45lb anchor. The amount of chain you put out must be approx the same weight. A straight pull on every anchor, as a chain does, will tell the true story.
Without a chain rhode you can't really duplicate the actual pull from a decent sized boat under any circumstance . It may work for a fresh water boat on a lake.
Please watch his other videos where he tests all anchors with all chain. He explained that at the beginning of the video. Notice what # video this was, not the first set of tests
You might want to watch his older videos where he was very negative about one of Sarka's anchors and the response he got from Anchor right might show why they are the best in almost all conditions.
![LIGHTNING Hits Boats. Here's How to Deal With It [Capable Cruising Guides]](/img/1.gif)
Normally I have very little patience for long youtube videos. Most videos that exceed 10 minutes I skim through if I ever actually try to watch them. But I watch your anchor tests from start to finish all the way through and I was shocked to see that this one was 53 minutes long. Your anchor tests are a great service to the boating community. Thank you for all the effort you put into them.
Panope SV is the benchmark for anchor testing right now! I am in the process of replacing a 44 Delta for a 55 Vulcan and these videos are lightening my way in the decision making. 30 years sailing and never seen such a comprehensive unbiased anchor testing program. From Spain, keep it up, Steve!
I concur!! From Australia 🤠
Me too, great work.
I concur too!!!
Vulcan is a very good anchor choice! Maybe the best.
Thanks for great information
As a liveaboard sailor we really appreciate your efforts
This is the best anchor testing I have seen. Thank you
I liked appreciated the effort you put into this. I would really have liked to have seen the test conducted with anchor chain, which is the normal way an anchor is set up. The weight of the anchor chain I would think would give some different results. I understand the issue with the windlass, so maybe get a boat with a working windlass and do the test over a few days to give a more real-life result.
Watch his other videos. This is the only one I've seen where he does not use chain. Levels the field for all.
In the follow-up veering test using heavy chain, the ranking of the anchors did not change. Keep in mind that an all chain rode at short scope can easily have a WORSE angle of pull at the anchor than an all rope rode (at longer scopes).
Fantastic! There are probably more surprises to come. The end rolls are a great treat - my personal favourites are the ray and the crab.
I learn something from every test.
Superb video and testing Steve, well done! Greetings from beautiful sunny and warm Sydney, Australia. (Yes, happy to see the Sarca Excel perform so well!)
Great testing videos. But this one is moot for me since I have 300 feet of chain. My assumption would be a drastically different result with most of these anchors sporting the proper scope of chain. I am equipped with a 55# Mantis M1, 300 feet of 5/16" chain and a Lewmar windlass on a 40' sailboat. Thank you for all the time you spend doing these tests. :)
Thorough testing, awesome. Thanks!
Im Glad you did it this way, when I bought my boat, it only had a 200' ⁹/16 rode and a 12lb Danforth, after sailing from Tampa to Panama city about dec 1st, and anchoring in 20-30 kt winds I bent the Danforth it up ended under a rock or something idk, so I found a 14lb fortress anchor for cheap and a 22lb cqr, I believe I will be finding an excel anchor thanks ... also I am adding about 30' of chain as I font have a windless either, my boat is 10k lbs.
Great a-test vid Steve!
As a newbie to sailing and anchoring and looking to improve on my current 45lb Bruce anchor, I find these videos extremely fascinating.
Would really like to see the Mantus M2 in testing also
They need chain rode on them to work properly.
Great vid Sir, I'm rocking a 35lb Delta and it has been good for us.
I bought a Spade 15 kg S80 after your tests, I’ve yet to use it but looking forward to it
Very interested to see about the wire rode findings! We have a large crosby shackle followed by 4 links of 12mm change attached to a kong swivel and then 100m of 10mm chain. That first meter of shackle, updated chain and swivel I’m sure must be hard to bury as you say. That said we’ve never dragged in over 4 years of using our Spade and we’ve anchored hundreds of times.
I suppose I’d need to be confident that the wire attached to the anchor in a way that would be as strong as the chain and didn’t form a weak link in the system.
Thanks for some really good tests.
I am "absolutely certain" that the anchors will perform better with e.g. 1 meter of vire between anchor and chain. Especially the little ones.
I have thought for myself about the idea and also whether to go down in size on the Shackles or use a rapide links.
The best thing would probably be to put the virer directly in the anchor, but it's a little impractical.
Regarding mudfauling, I'm almost certain that painting the "shovel" on the anchor with smooth paint, preferably teflon, could alleviate the problem...
Just for inspiration.
The painting aspect has been covered in subsequent videos.
Thank You for a interesting test. We sail around with a 18kg (35 pound) CQR and a 20 kg (40 pound) Mantus with roll bar. The best we can do is to use both at the same time with 90 meters of chain. 😬
Very interesting test, thanks for that video. However, I think you killed a crab while doing your test 😅
Good stuff. Crabs were well fed that day.
Looking forward on test of the new Lewmar Epsilon anchor.
I agree. Excellent service, thanks very much for all your hard work, but I can't see that these results count for anything when they only use a rope rode - we all know that weight of chain is important.
In my follow up to this video, I conducted similar testing using a very heavy chain. The ranking of the anchors did not change. The "rope only" test is without question, a good comparison test between the anchors.
Fascinating stuff. I was very interested in that you tested the Knox, as that's my primary anchor. I was then disappointed with it's performance in the test. I't would be interesting to see how it performs in soft mud, since that's what most of my anchoring area is.
Worse
The mud cakes up
Surprisingly poor performance by the Rocna. Any idea why it fails so significantly on this seabed, compared to usually inferior anchors?
I believe the rollbar inhibits the seabed from moving past the anchor. At first, this might seem like a good thing, and perhaps ADDS holding power. But as force increases, the seabed that is packed in front of the roll bar shears away (or becomes disconnected) from the surrounding seabed. This new anchor/seabed combination (blob) has little ability to remain engaged. For 'non-cohesive' seabeds like clean sand, this phenomenon will not occur and the anchor may continue to dive deeply into the seabed and produce high holding power.
@@flygoodwin Thanks for the answer. It was interesting to see how the different anchors performed in this test. We have used Rocna for several years, and have never experienced it dragging like this (or not setting). I assume some perticular seabed conditions can be a challenge, but it does not seem like a common problem in most conditions.
Anyways, we sleep well using our Rocna, but are now aware that it has a couple of shortcomings.
If we were to buy a new anchor today, we'd consider an Ultra anchor. It looks like a very good allround performer. Thanks for all the tests you make! 👍
I don’t have an anchor preference because I don’t have a boat...yet. I appreciate your extension testing, but I thought much of the anchors behavior is based on the weight of the anchor chain attached to the shaft. I understand your limitations, so maybe we can start a crowd funding for a new windless. :) Do you think a chain rode would make a significant difference on some anchors? Thanks again.
I would be interested to see how a box anchor woud behave, given the claim of 2:1 scope and all nylon rod? I have a 20 footer and sail along a lot over mangrove muddy bottom. Are they any good, or just a fad!!!
Hello and thank you for your very complete tests that we cannot see anywhere
However, it would be interesting to have other tests on sands of different natures, such as harder or more muddy sand etc.
I remember a video in the gravel, very interesting
Are Sue worth the last generation anchors in hard sand?
Do they sink as well?
On the other hand, I am French and not familiar with the "lbs" measurement. What is it?
Compared to KG, what is the difference? double, half?
Bravo again and to the pleasure of a future video
Frederick
Thanks Frederic. Unfortunately, "hard sand" does not seem to exist in my part of the world. Perhaps I will need to travel to another part of the world. "lbs." is an abbreviation for "pounds". The conversion is 2.2 lbs./Kg. Cheers.
Thank you for doing this now I know what anchor to buy
Funny how different the results are that I get in the California delta. The fortress is next to worthless but great at pulling up a salad ball and will never reset. The “genuine” Bruce claw has never failed but all clones are worthless. Since I can’t find another original Bruce the Delta anchor works extremely well if not better and it’s very economical priced. What the bottom is, makes anchor selection important.
Nice work, Steve, and very useful info for Puget Sound sailors, particularly. Question: do you have any thoughts on anchor alarms? I'm struggling to find one that I trust even after using Vesper's WatchMate and the anchor alarm included on my B&G Zeus chartplotter. They all seem to be low-function afterthoughts to the device's main purpose, and I want an alarm that is designed with the features needed to immediately alert me should my ground tackle fail to hold. A test of anchor alarms done with your usual level of thoroughness would be great!
I'm probably not the best person to evaluate electronics as I am a bit of a wannabe Luddite. That said, I use "Drag Queen" (free app) on android devices and also use the built-in anchor alarm of a Garmin 740 chart plotter. I'm sure these are antiquated by today's standards, but they seem to do the job (make noise when boat travels beyond a set boundary).
Good interesting tests but anchors need a segment of chain by design, so you should conduct the same test with 6-10’ of chain to each anchor. Also make the chain the appropriate size expected for each anchor. Like 1/4” for the 17# but say 5/16” or 3/8” for the larger anchors.
Agreed. I have always understood that the anchor leads the chain and both the chain and anchor work together to reduce drift.
That might seem logical, but in fact it's not. This an anchor test' to see what the anchor is doing not what the weight of the chain is doing. This test was at 7-1 scope which would replicate chain at a shorter more standard scope of 4-1.
I was wondering if you could tell me how to set up my delta anchor so it trips I see it hasa hole on the shank añd on top anchor
Great video!! Thank you!!!!
All the test shows is which anchors behave well without chain. And since no one anchors without chain it is not a very useful test.
That might seem logical, but in fact it's not. This is an anchor test to see what the anchor is doing, not what the weight of the chain is doing. This test was at run 7-1 scope which would replicate chain at a shorter more standard scope of say 4-1. It also showed that without the wide resistance of the chain some shanks went deeper with just rode, the opposite of what you would expect, but reflects the design principle of those anchors.
@@nav1269 You have just confirmed the invalidity of the test by saying that some shanks went deeper with just rode. This can never happen in a real life scenario as the use of chain is mandatory. I have never seen some of the anchors behave like in this test in real life situations. I suspect the ground was incredibly soft and porous and some anchors performed better in this substrate without chain.
@@robferenczi3024 Ignore these tests at your own peril, I have seen 2 boats drag on to coral reefs in Indonesia in the last year. They had plenty of chain out and anchors that matched the ones that performed poorly in these and his previous tests.
Based on the series he did 4 years ago, I decided I would replace my CQR with one of his top 3, being in Australia, it was easy to get a Sarca Excel. Now I rarely Anchor over 3-1 scope, unless its bad weather and we never move. 18 months at anchor in remote areas. I have a Bruce and Fortress as spares they are good anchors in the right conditions but the Excel works in all.
@@nav1269 I can agree using my personal practical experience that the CQR is not a very good anchor. But your tests also showed some very strange behaviour from some of the modern anchors like the Rocna. I replaced my CQR with a Rocna 10 years ago and after using it extensively, with minimum scope, I cannot agree with your test findings. But I do appreciate the effort you put into these tests.
Your idea about a wire in front, is interesting. If y then put example 8 mtr chain U will get weary high forse of ancor
I'd like to suggest clipping this video into sections, marked by anchor type.
Gypsy, I am not familiar with the process of "clipping" a RUclips video. I will look into it.
I did consider uploading each segment as it's own separate RUclips video, but I felt that for comparison purposes, it was better to present all-in-one.
@@flygoodwin If you put timecodes into the description with the anchor name (like "41:00 - Genuine CQR") it will automatically divide the video up into marked sections that you can see in the timeline, and access directly. Probably one of the coolest new features on youtube.
So funny. Soooo many swear by their Rocna. All your tests seem to make this anchor sub par, at best.
Actually, the Rocna (unmodified) performed quite well in my "soft mud", "cobblestone" and "sand and gravel" test sites.
It is only in this "sandy mud" test site that the Rocna performed poorly.
I do conduct a disproportionate amount of testing in this "sandy mud" site, because I believe it is the most common substrate of my cruising area - the Salish Sea.
I ditched my fortress anchor after dragging around in an overnight wind event. I heard many "swear" buy it in article and sailing channels (now wondering if they were "paid" endorsements). I was out with my Rocna knowing that the overnight would be 30 knots as a test. I remember at midnight it was so windy that I thought I should out more scope out. The rode was so taught, I had trouble pulling the 24' Quickstep (only 4,500 lb) forward with the rode to be able to loosen the rode from the clear.. I'm Downeast and was likely in a mud flat. Held great and even managed to get a decent night's sleep. Rocna 10.
Thanks for your reply. Also, I may have missed it. Could you direct me to one of your vids that describes the issues with mud clinging to the flukes and why this is bad for holding. It seems counterintuitive. If the mud it sticking to the flukes, I would think that is good and desired. I hear comments, oh no, I see mud stuck to the anchor. And where there is no mud upon retrieval, that is a good sign (?)
@@Dave-SailsAway check out my anchor test videos #67 and #87 for an introduction into my investigations into the topic of seabed adhesion to anchors. I now have little doubt that the key to high holding power is Deep Penetration. To achieve this, the anchor must "slide" underneath the seabed and not "stick" to it.
It would be great to have the same test in gravel/rocks, to know the overall best anchor. I also think that a bit of chain would be more real world test. I think that in gravel the Bruce is not as bad, and there would be surprises.
Thanks for the suggestion, Enric. I will add "veer testing in gravel" to my list of possible future tests.
Great video mate loved IT also subscribed For more videos
We are getting ready to cruise in the Salish Sea. Our primary anchor is a 110# Bruce with 3/8" chain. Our secondary anchor is a 60# CQR. The boat is a trawler with about 54,000lbs displacement. Do you think the Bruce is the right anchor for the PNW? After watching your videos I'm not so sure.
More than a few knowledgeable people have said that the larger (60lb +) Bruce anchors perform disproportionately better than the Smaller Bruce anchors. If true, then a 110# Bruce Sounds pretty good to me. I'd love to (somehow) test that theory.
@@flygoodwin When we get back out there maybe we can collaborate.
@@123mariner Sounds good.
Thank You for all your efforts. I had my eyes opened up and maybe I have an idea for something..... 'And now>> for something completely different
I wonder how the Mantus M2 would rate ???
Hi Steve, please forgive my ignorance, you have most likely explained it in one of your earlier videos: How do you determine the load acting on the anchor? Do you use a load cell in the rode?
No worries Mathias,
Prior to testing the anchors, I measured the "bollard pull" of the test boat while tied to a dock. Pull numbers where recorded across the RPM range of the engine. During the actual anchor tests, RPM (and therefore pulling force) is noted. See my video "Anchor Test Equipment Modifications".
OK, thanks! I guess I need to watch that video as well... :) During that calibration, did you also maintain a 7:1 scope of you attachment to the dock? I guess at that scope it does not matter that much, but still curious.
@@mathiaswagner6457 During dockside calibration, load was horizontal. Feel free to add a few percent to the pull numbers if you wish. By my way of thinking the real value of my numbers is in making comparisons between the various anchors in the test.
Just saw the video. Yes, more or less horizontal, so the numbers would have to be recalibrated a bit. But as you say, the relative values are what matters. If I wanted to be very picky, I would say that as you increase the RPM, without actually moving, you would get more and more tilt into your vessel, as the anchor will drag the stern downwards. This tilt then makes for a different thrust angle of your outboarder, and again changes things slightly. This makes for a non-linear correction factor. And finally, since your vessel was close to the pontoon when doing the calibration, there will be some effect due to the water streaming against the pontoon and not being able to flow away as freely as in the open. All this will modify the absolute values somewhat, but likely all within the normal margin of error, anyway. It does not take away how great and valuable all these tests are! Thanks a bunch! My personal takeaway is that my choice of a Spade X160 was not so bad, after all. :) But I should have chosen an even bigger brother of it!
I did not notice in which class you put CQR? It was not on the table at the end of the video.
Look again. CQR was on the table. It was in the "second best" group.
@@flygoodwin Sorry, have to buy new glasses.
I agree with the people saying it is not a proper test without the chain and proper length rode. I'm assuming these anchors are designed around this. I'm surprised you haven't had a lower performing manufacturer complain yet...This is a lot of work to go through for an inproper test. Done right, this would be an awesome video.
Hi. I find this test Interesting , and i now want to purchase the best preforming ( little) anger. U call it “”( steel xl 17 pound). If I weight steel xl anger on Google, I get a lot if different shapes and products. How do I find the one ? Do u have more specific data on thus little 17p steel xl ? Regards Jens DK
Greetings Jens, The anchor that you are referring to is a SARCA EXCEL made by the ANCHOR RIGHT company of Australia. I am not sure if they have distribution in Europe, but I believe they will ship anchors world wide. I have conducted other testing of the 17 pound EXCEL and it is indeed a very fine anchor in many seabeds. However, it performs poorly in my "soft mud" seabed. Sea my most recent video here: ruclips.net/video/wKAt4vt74kM/видео.html
Lovely.
Olá tenho uma Bruce 5K mais 3 mts de corrente calibrada com girador entre cabo e corrente, acha suficente para um MacGregor 26 em solo as vezes em areia, as vezes em solo barrento. Obrigado
can you test a Lone Star MMX anchor
Awesome!
Very disappointed with your test of the Rocna 45. You modified the anchor and as a result, the anchor tested was not a Rocna 45. You should rename it to a Stephen 45. I suspect that the flare that you straightened on the Rocna may actually serve as a brake. Yes, there may be problem with sediment buildup, but that is true on most if not all anchors. On some of the anchors that come out clean, it may be that they cleaned themselves on the way up from the bottom. Love the videos, however, I think that you seem to have a bias against Rocna. Of course, I'm biased because I have a Rocna 45 and a Delta 35.
The Rocna was tested in this seabed prior to the modifications and it was found to have much less holding power than needed to begin the veering test.
As to any bias that I may have, I wonder what the motivation might be? No bias against the Rocna company - I show thier Vulcan anchor performing wonderfully. No bias against roll bar anchors - I have shown the roll bar anchors (including the Rocna) outperforming non-rollbar. anchors in other seabeds/tests. No bias against the gentleman who owns my Rocna test specimen - he was a very generous (and trusting) stranger who reached out to me with the intent of furthering these tests.
The reality is that the rollbar anchors (modified or not) have shortcomings in this particular seabed.
@@flygoodwin Thank you for the timely response. As you mentioned, they rode used on this test is a nylon line. Could that have made difference in your test results and conclusions as opposed to the use of an all chain rode? In other words, if we use an all chain rode, will our results be different from those in this test.
@@BarringtonOASmith absolutly
All chain would have most likely helped the performance of all the anchors assuming that the same depth and scope (7 to 1) was used.
If all chain was used at the same depth but with 3.5 to 1 scope, then the performance of all the anchors may have been degraded due to catenary reduction. (see my "Anchor Chain Catenary" video).
Note that during previous testing in this same seabed using ALL CHAIN the UNMODIFIED Rocna had a maximum holding power of about 600 lbs. The resulting rode "angle of pull" at the anchor would have been roughly equivalent to a ROPE ONLY rode of 7 to 1 scope.
I think you should repeat this test with like 50' of chain.
I'd like to repeat every test that I have ever done - with 50' of chain.
Tests without chain are relatively worthless. The chain is more important than the anchor.
I agree. Using chain is normal with ground tackle. This is a sub-par test.
Sounds like a plan - you buy him the windlass!
I never said it was sub par I think it's great for people like me who don't have a windlass... because I don't currently have any chain, but plan to add about 50' lol
That mantis m11 , a popular brand by you tube channels, is not impressive to me. 😂
For sure .. it need to be tested having a bit of chain attached .
Use a feed sack full of lead shot or rocks :)
It would drag quickly in strong wind. Perhaps you are joking. ;-)
Not a very realistic test, I would say. The rule of thumb I've learned as a captain, is that your chain is your actual anchor. The boat is "riding" and pulling on that. The anchor, as we love to call it, is the device of preventing your anchor, (chain), from slipping. If the spesifications demand a 45lb anchor. The amount of chain you put out must be approx the same weight. A straight pull on every anchor, as a chain does, will tell the true story.
Without a chain rhode you can't really duplicate the actual pull from a decent sized boat under any circumstance . It may work for a fresh water boat on a lake.
Please watch his other videos where he tests all anchors with all chain. He explained that at the beginning of the video. Notice what # video this was, not the first set of tests
No chain being used so you can't possibly get a real test , anybody should know this?
I conclude that you are sponsored by excel. Short rode and no chain makes me feel like I wasted my time here.
You might want to watch his older videos where he was very negative about one of Sarka's anchors and the response he got from Anchor right might show why they are the best in almost all conditions.