Thank you Steve. You put a lot of work in there. Your unbiased tests are a great help to us. Your work contributed greatly to purchasing a mantus bower anchor and a fortress kedge. I have not regretted it. They are a massive improvement on what we dragged around harbours before.
In the spreadsheet, consider including the fluke area. As a geologist, I an interested in the holding power as a function of fluke area and the point at which the shear strength of the substrate is exceeded. When that is exceeded (in pounds of pull per fluke area, no anchor is going to hold. Thanks for all that you do. Good stuff.
I am not convinced that fluke area alone is an accurate predictor of performance. The depth to which an anchor dives is a very (more?) important factor also. I would choose a smaller anchor that was able to dive deeply into the seabed over a larger anchor that could not. All that said, if I find the time to measure all the anchor shank areas, I will share. For the convex anchors, do you recommend measuring the "actual fluke surface" or perhaps the "plan view" area? Thanks for the idea.
I fish in lakes, where the bottom is clay. The boats are about 20'. The delta works, but haven't tried others. You have to work around timber. In timber I use a 1.5 # folding grapple.
Thanks for all your hard work. I have a Beneteau 46, SV Cheval, and I bought a Sarca Excel #5 based on its strong performance in your earlier tests. I am glad to see that the Excel #5 also performed well in your soft mud tests. We have been more than happy with the anchor, traveling up the East Coast and now in Maine. I also chose it because It matches the lines of the B46 better than a Spade! Haha.
Aye m8, may I suggest to be even more consequent, and in each test keep the name, type, weight scope etc for the specific anchor in frame all through the test? Thereby it’s more convenient when one want to search for a special anchor in a test, and want to review them again to find the test one is looking for. Also it maybe would add even more accuracy to your elegant channel. Just a thought from a Patreon.
Maybe for this and past videos can just add a comment / description that lists the anchor with the timestamp so can easily scroll to find the spot you want to check out again. love these videos.
There is this a certain bottom, we see it in cook inlet, its a mix of sand and mud. If you throw a danforth in that and let it settle for a few hours while you fish, you'll be lucky if you can get the thing back.
Hi Steve! Great work as usual. I, as you, have a Mason Supreme (45 lbs). I spent a lot of money to acquire it, and have not been very happy with its performance. I boat in the Thousand Islands, up state NY. We have three types of bottom up here. 1) Hard/packed sand where the Manson Supreme is completely useless; 2) One foot-deep of mud with a lot of weeds. The Manson Supreme is second to none in this type of bottom. I was able to hold my own boat (a dry weight of 25,000 lbs) plus another 40’ and 34’ Express Cruisers. No sweat. 3) 5 millimeters of sands with cobble stones underneath. I did not try the Manson there. I tried my other anchor, a 45 lbs Delta, to no avail. My question with regards to the Manson Supreme: I follow your videos, and I see that you made three mods to your own Manson Supreme anchor, as per video 58. I’m confirming to you than drilling holes into the anchor, as you did, solves the “mud-sticking-to-the anchor” issue. I can see that cutting the sides close to the tip of the anchor should solve the problem of the Manson not wanting to dig into hard-packed sand. However, I’m unclear to the value of removing the top of the shank as you did in a previous video on your mods to your Manson Supreme. Could you please tell me, in hindsight, what value this change brought to your own Manson Supreme anchor (45 lbs)? Many tks in advance. Regards, JMF
Jean-Marc, Thanks for sharing your experience with the Manson. "Solves the problem of mud sticking" is a statement that is too broad for me to make. Certainly, there exists somewhere, a seabed that will stick to and foul any anchor. The holes in the fluke made a very large improvement in the anchors ability to reset in the 'sandy mud' seabed. On retrieval, the fluke was mud free in the area of the holes. Cutting off the top of the shank produced a small improvement in resetting, presumably because weight was shifted to the toe of the anchor. Steve
Thanks for these tests. I've been watching and liking them all. Its a great service to the boat community. I found myself wondering if the relatively short scope might be limiting some types of anchors, like the weighted types from diving down and finding more solid bottom. That's not meant to be negative, as the relative holding at short scope is useful to know under marginal conditions. I'm sure you know these anchors are designed with a minimum scope that affects the angle of the dangle. I also realize that multiple scopes with so many anchors would be double or triple the work. But it sure would be nice to know how they work when used as designed.
Greetings, When anchor manufacturers specify a minimum recommended scope, we can assume that this is for a (mostly) rope rode as none of the manufacturers specify all chain. In this test, the chain was long (and heavy) enough, that the maximum thrust of the test boat was able to remove only part of the catenary. Therefore, for this test, assume that the angle of pull at the anchor is equivalent to 5 to 1 scope (rope rode) or greater. See my "Anchor Chain Catenary video #89. Cheers.
I have another theory why the small excel anchor did not perform as well as expected. I agree the ears might play a role, definitely a valid hypothesis you suggested. But I also think that if the shank angle was larger, like a mantus or ultra anchor, the small excel may perform better.
That is a good theory, Ross. It is supported by the fact that Fortress anchors have two fluke/shank angle settings with the large angle being better for very soft mud. Note: For this test (and all other of my Fortress tests) I used the smaller, 32 degree angle.
I was thinking its not designed to operate at 3.5 scope and just won't dive once the bottom starts to firm up. But if used as designed it might work fine.
Hi Steve, do you have any results for the Ultra 46lb in the soft mud? Also are you going to re test the Ultra? Seems as though during initial testing it dealt with way more sea weed than the other anchors, could that have skewed the results?
The aluminum sarca #5 did shockingly well given its weight. It’s odd the sarca #1 did so poorly. I have my eye on the #4. Sure hope it acts more like it’s bigger brother.
Good day Steve, I just recently watch you tremendous good videos because i,m looking for a new anchor. I have a question what type of reliable anchor would be most suitable to retrieve by hand Presently I have a 30pound SQR standard on my 37feet sailboat. Which is just manageable if it collects mud or others I have a challenge. Keep up the good job !
Interesting test. I have a 55lb SS Delta copy on our 35' sailboat (which is a lot larger than most on this size boat). I usually try to get at least 4:1 scope and have 135' of 5/16" chain, so this often means going to rope in deeper water. It has never dragged once set that I can tell, although in some cases it can take a while to set. I typically drive forward to release once the chain is near vertical, as the windlass will struggle to pull it otherwise. Of course, the dragging before it sets is a cause for concern in areas with reversing current/wind and limited room if the anchor needs to reset itself on a shift. Have you tried testing a pull 180 degrees to the set, to see how much force it takes, and how far it drags?
Hello Sailing Callisto, I have done extensive "180 degrees reset" testing. For people who are new to my anchor videos, I recommend they start by watching Video #56 (a compilation of earlier work) and then watch each subsequent video.
I think about this all the time. However, I have not yet dreamed up anything new or revolutionary. I have little interest in matching the performance of existing designs.
I understand the volcan is 10 lbs Heavier then rest of the group But it did not move infact it went Deeper and you said I would down grade it if it was the same weight What's your reasoning
Thank you. Clearly, that required a massive amount of effort on your part to test the anchors and make the video. The results are fascinating.
Rough guide - trust Steve's numbers not mine
80 lbs?
1:39 17 lb Sarca excel #1 (steel)
100+ lbs?
6:19 45 lb delta
7:59 14 lb Northill
115 lbs
10:23 11 lb Bruce (anchor difficult to retrieve)
160 lbs
16:17 21 lb Spade S60 (steel) (anchor difficult to recover
220 lbs
19:00 13 lb Mantus
20:44 12 b viking (impossible to retrieve)
250 lbs
24:08 45 lb car
25:26 65lb Forford
310 lbs
26:04 47 lb super sarca
430 lbs
28:55 44 Bruce
500 lbs
30:42 55 lb Vulcan
32:21 45 Spade s100 (steel)
33:40 45 lb Rocna
37:10 ultra 46 lbs
610 lbs
38:20 47 lb excel #5 Steel
38:21 27 lb excel #5 aluminium performed the same as the steel
40:40 45 lb Modified Manson
42:10 45 lb Mantus
680+ lbs
42:35 10lb Fortress
Thank you Steve. You put a lot of work in there. Your unbiased tests are a great help to us. Your work contributed greatly to purchasing a mantus bower anchor and a fortress kedge. I have not regretted it. They are a massive improvement on what we dragged around harbours before.
Thank you for your great work. I would like see every test include 180 degree reset
Great test information. Great service to all boaters.
In the spreadsheet, consider including the fluke area. As a geologist, I an interested in the holding power as a function of fluke area and the point at which the shear strength of the substrate is exceeded. When that is exceeded (in pounds of pull per fluke area, no anchor is going to hold. Thanks for all that you do. Good stuff.
I am not convinced that fluke area alone is an accurate predictor of performance. The depth to which an anchor dives is a very (more?) important factor also. I would choose a smaller anchor that was able to dive deeply into the seabed over a larger anchor that could not.
All that said, if I find the time to measure all the anchor shank areas, I will share. For the convex anchors, do you recommend measuring the "actual fluke surface" or perhaps the "plan view" area?
Thanks for the idea.
I fish in lakes, where the bottom is clay. The boats are about 20'. The delta works, but haven't tried others. You have to work around timber. In timber I use a 1.5 # folding grapple.
Thanks for all your hard work. I have a Beneteau 46, SV Cheval, and I bought a Sarca Excel #5 based on its strong performance in your earlier tests. I am glad to see that the Excel #5 also performed well in your soft mud tests. We have been more than happy with the anchor, traveling up the East Coast and now in Maine. I also chose it because It matches the lines of the B46 better than a Spade! Haha.
I see what you did there!
Glad to hear the Excel is working for you.
Aye m8, may I suggest to be even more consequent, and in each test keep the name, type, weight scope etc for the specific anchor in frame all through the test? Thereby it’s more convenient when one want to search for a special anchor in a test, and want to review them again to find the test one is looking for.
Also it maybe would add even more accuracy to your elegant channel.
Just a thought from a Patreon.
That is a great idea.
Wish I had thought to do that before I uploaded the video. Will do it in the future.
Thanks,
Steve
Maybe for this and past videos can just add a comment / description that lists the anchor with the timestamp so can easily scroll to find the spot you want to check out again. love these videos.
@@davemcgrawrrr That’s a brilliant idea and could easily be combined with the labelling mentioned above.
There is this a certain bottom, we see it in cook inlet, its a mix of sand and mud. If you throw a danforth in that and let it settle for a few hours while you fish, you'll be lucky if you can get the thing back.
Hi Steve! Great work as usual. I, as you, have a Mason Supreme (45 lbs). I spent a lot of money to acquire it, and have not been very happy with its performance. I boat in the Thousand Islands, up state NY. We have three types of bottom up here. 1) Hard/packed sand where the Manson Supreme is completely useless; 2) One foot-deep of mud with a lot of weeds. The Manson Supreme is second to none in this type of bottom. I was able to hold my own boat (a dry weight of 25,000 lbs) plus another 40’ and 34’ Express Cruisers. No sweat. 3) 5 millimeters of sands with cobble stones underneath. I did not try the Manson there. I tried my other anchor, a 45 lbs Delta, to no avail. My question with regards to the Manson Supreme: I follow your videos, and I see that you made three mods to your own Manson Supreme anchor, as per video 58. I’m confirming to you than drilling holes into the anchor, as you did, solves the “mud-sticking-to-the anchor” issue. I can see that cutting the sides close to the tip of the anchor should solve the problem of the Manson not wanting to dig into hard-packed sand. However, I’m unclear to the value of removing the top of the shank as you did in a previous video on your mods to your Manson Supreme. Could you please tell me, in hindsight, what value this change brought to your own Manson Supreme anchor (45 lbs)? Many tks in advance. Regards, JMF
Jean-Marc, Thanks for sharing your experience with the Manson.
"Solves the problem of mud sticking" is a statement that is too broad for me to make. Certainly, there exists somewhere, a seabed that will stick to and foul any anchor.
The holes in the fluke made a very large improvement in the anchors ability to reset in the 'sandy mud' seabed. On retrieval, the fluke was mud free in the area of the holes.
Cutting off the top of the shank produced a small improvement in resetting, presumably because weight was shifted to the toe of the anchor.
Steve
Thanks
Some very interesting results!
Thanks for these tests. I've been watching and liking them all. Its a great service to the boat community. I found myself wondering if the relatively short scope might be limiting some types of anchors, like the weighted types from diving down and finding more solid bottom. That's not meant to be negative, as the relative holding at short scope is useful to know under marginal conditions. I'm sure you know these anchors are designed with a minimum scope that affects the angle of the dangle. I also realize that multiple scopes with so many anchors would be double or triple the work. But it sure would be nice to know how they work when used as designed.
Greetings, When anchor manufacturers specify a minimum recommended scope, we can assume that this is for a (mostly) rope rode as none of the manufacturers specify all chain. In this test, the chain was long (and heavy) enough, that the maximum thrust of the test boat was able to remove only part of the catenary. Therefore, for this test, assume that the angle of pull at the anchor is equivalent to 5 to 1 scope (rope rode) or greater. See my "Anchor Chain Catenary video #89. Cheers.
Awesome!!
Great tests. Would have liked you to test the cqr plough also
Thanks, Rod. The CQR appears at 24:10 in the video
I have another theory why the small excel anchor did not perform as well as expected. I agree the ears might play a role, definitely a valid hypothesis you suggested. But I also think that if the shank angle was larger, like a mantus or ultra anchor, the small excel may perform better.
That is a good theory, Ross.
It is supported by the fact that Fortress anchors have two fluke/shank angle settings with the large angle being better for very soft mud.
Note: For this test (and all other of my Fortress tests) I used the smaller, 32 degree angle.
I was thinking its not designed to operate at 3.5 scope and just won't dive once the bottom starts to firm up. But if used as designed it might work fine.
On the clay lake bottoms the Danforth type anchors just skip.
Hi Steve, do you have any results for the Ultra 46lb in the soft mud? Also are you going to re test the Ultra? Seems as though during initial testing it dealt with way more sea weed than the other anchors, could that have skewed the results?
The aluminum sarca #5 did shockingly well given its weight. It’s odd the sarca #1 did so poorly. I have my eye on the #4. Sure hope it acts more like it’s bigger brother.
Good day Steve, I just recently watch you tremendous good videos because i,m looking for a new anchor. I have a question what type of reliable anchor would be most suitable to retrieve by hand
Presently I have a 30pound SQR standard on my 37feet sailboat. Which is just manageable if it collects mud or others I have a challenge. Keep up the good job !
Really great test, thanks!
Have you seen Lewmars new anchor model Epsilon? Looks really promising, would love to see that anchor tested.
Had not seen that. Interesting design. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting test. I have a 55lb SS Delta copy on our 35' sailboat (which is a lot larger than most on this size boat). I usually try to get at least 4:1 scope and have 135' of 5/16" chain, so this often means going to rope in deeper water. It has never dragged once set that I can tell, although in some cases it can take a while to set. I typically drive forward to release once the chain is near vertical, as the windlass will struggle to pull it otherwise. Of course, the dragging before it sets is a cause for concern in areas with reversing current/wind and limited room if the anchor needs to reset itself on a shift. Have you tried testing a pull 180 degrees to the set, to see how much force it takes, and how far it drags?
Hello Sailing Callisto,
I have done extensive "180 degrees reset" testing. For people who are new to my anchor videos, I recommend they start by watching Video #56 (a compilation of earlier work) and then watch each subsequent video.
@sailingcallisto3791 you have an anchor similar to mine? 🙂
Here’s mine and it’s parameters ua-cam.com/video/e-918SES3dU/v-deo.htmlsi=r9AsnQC9S2MWaGWS
Will there be a Steve designed anchor built for next summer? :)
I think about this all the time. However, I have not yet dreamed up anything new or revolutionary. I have little interest in matching the performance of existing designs.
Will you be testing the mantus m2 ?
Yes. Soon.
@@flygoodwin thinking to use it as my back up, unless it's better than the sarca excel in the mud ... lol Haida Gwaii B.C
I understand the volcan is 10 lbs
Heavier then rest of the group
But it did not move infact it went
Deeper and you said I would down grade it if it was the same weight
What's your reasoning
My assumption was that if the anchor were smaller, it would have less holding power.
@@flygoodwin
Ok fair enough I would assume
That the design would do the same
If the dog ears where Bent down, wouldn't the anchor drive down?
Fred, please explain what you mean by "dog ears".
@@flygoodwin I am pretty sure it is a nickname for fluke ears...
That's funny. That was a term you used in the video. They are the flaps in the rear of the fluke. The fortress has a plate to steer the fluke down.