It occurs to me that, from this point onwards, any anchor vendor who is thinking of releasing any new designs on the market would be well advised to put their design through your testing regimen first, before going into production. Now Lewmar will have to spend more marketing $$$ trying to convince us to still buy their new baby, despite your "Seeing is Believing" video evidence of performance. ( Hint to Lewmar: Ask Steve to test your next try at a prototype?) Well done, Steve. You are providing a very valuable resource, much appreciated!
Steve, very helpful video. I was considering purchasing an Epsilon. As you commented - on the face of it the Epsilon was potentially a game changer - modern design features, weighted tip, reputable manufacturer and very competitive price. Yet it failed on some important tests and is only marginally better than the Delta it replaces in the product line. Saved me making a mediocre purchase. Thanks
Good test! Really unfortunate that this model performed so poorly, the design looked promising.I work at boat suply store and we got the galvanised Epsilon 6kg in our store. It is very roughly built and the finish is quite rough. If you want pictures of this i can email you.
Wow! Would love to see more footage of that cobblestone seabed failure. Maybe a “slippery” SS is here also a hindrance is this specific seabed? Thank you for the videos
Good test! I was also very dissapointed with Epsilon´s performance. I expected it to become THE ANCHOR considering its shape is so similar to the higher scorers. As water performance is what really counts to me, my choice comes down to Vulkan or Spade because Excel and Viking are not available or difficult to get in Spain. Chances are I will go for the Spade for one simple reason aside of its top performance: it holds strongly to the bow fitting when fully pulled in. This is not achieved by Vulkan because its maximun curve of its shank is too high making it unstable in the roll bar. Spade´s shank curve has the highest angle of attack right at the welding of the fluke with the shank. This helps to bring the fluke in to acomodate firmly in the bow fitting. My boat is a French Beneteau. It shows here that Spade (also manufactured in France) designers took good care in making sure their anchors would hold strong agains the bow fittings of most French production boats. A good design feature in my opinion.
Hello Steve, 2 questions for you: 1. When will you test in clear sand on a regular basis? Clear sand is probably the most popular anchoring seabed. 2. Do you think that stainless steel glossy surface has a negative impact in the holding capability of any anchor when comparing the same model in galvanized steel?
Greeting Gran, I want to answer your questions but I need you to clarify what you mean by "clear sand" and by "regular basis". Assuming identical shape and weight, I believe a polished stainless steel will anchor will have an advantage over a less smooth, galvanized anchor.
I consider the clean sand seabed to be a very valuable test site. I'll get all those "X's" filled in asap. Certainly, new anchors will continue to be tested there.
When is a roll bar not a roll bar... Interesting that an anchor that appears to have lots of good features did so poorly - I wonder if the short shank had something to do with it.
Hi Steve, I have a question regarding anchor weight. While most anchor manufacturers will recomend a 44 (or even 55) pound anchor for a 40 footer sailboat at 22.000 pounds, other manufacturers will recommend a 22 pound anchor. The logic behind promoting a low weight anchor is based in that the light anchor will be forced to dive in the seabed easier than a heavy anchor. I would defenitely love to carry a 22 pound anchor but I am still hesitant to go for such a low weight after 30 years of anchor reading in which all statements recommend to go for the biggest and heaviest anchor your bow can fit. What is your opinion about the above? Thanks in advance.
Gran, I believe that the advantages of having a larger anchor out-weigh the disadvantages. The variables that determine the needed anchor size are too numerous to list and many of them are unknowable, even to the skipper (bottom composition/debris, weather, how large is the neighboring boat that drags down on you, etc.). The person creating a "recommended" anchor size chart has an even greater challenge as they cannot know an even larger list of variables (Crew competence, Vessel windage, Does the vessel yaw at anchor?, Can the anchor set be viewed by the crew, Crew risk tolerance, Is the vessel well insured?, Is the leeward shore soft sand or jagged rocks?, etc).
Your tests of other anchors have shown that upturned mud palms at the back of the anchor fluke/base causes pressure and resistance, like an aeroplane’s wing flaps, that forces the nose of the anchor to point upwards to the sky and then to release. Not to mention contributing to mud accumulation in general. Really they should be downturned or flat at the back of the anchor. Downturned mud palms at the back might, again like an aeroplane, force the nose to dive down and neutral will let mud flow unhindered off the back of the anchor. I suggest this might be one reason for some of the poor results.
Ross, in the heavy, cohesive seabeds that I often test, I believe the "upturned fluke trailing edges" hinder performance by promoting seabed sticking to the fluke. I see no indication of anchors "rotating" upward (toe up relative to trailing edge) at any time before or during releases. In fact, I notice the opposite.
Steve, any chance of doing a video on your camera rig setup? Or is there already one in the back catalogue? I'm interested in trying it out on our current anchor and using it to evaluate some home made anchors as I build them and get time to test. I'll accept a private video on condition of not sharing and not uploading any footage if necessary :-) No intention to "compete" just keen to learn from prior art rather than trying to develop a camera tether system of my own from scratch, but I will if I have to :-)
@@flygoodwin Might be easier for me to find as I've watched most of them, so I could just see which ones I haven't (anchors I don't like the design of, mostly). If you do remember, please do post. I might have a look tomorrow but today is done already.
It occurs to me that, from this point onwards, any anchor vendor who is thinking of releasing any new designs on the market would be well advised to put their design through your testing regimen first, before going into production. Now Lewmar will have to spend more marketing $$$ trying to convince us to still buy their new baby, despite your "Seeing is Believing" video evidence of performance. ( Hint to Lewmar: Ask Steve to test your next try at a prototype?)
Well done, Steve. You are providing a very valuable resource, much appreciated!
Steve, very helpful video. I was considering purchasing an Epsilon. As you commented - on the face of it the Epsilon was potentially a game changer - modern design features, weighted tip, reputable manufacturer and very competitive price. Yet it failed on some important tests and is only marginally better than the Delta it replaces in the product line. Saved me making a mediocre purchase. Thanks
Thank you Steve! Every sailor should watch your videos before go out on anchor :)
Kudos for persisting with a clearly deficient design. I am surprised and shows the value of your work. Thank you
Thanks for posting Steve. Impressive and thorough review. 👍🏻
Good test! Really unfortunate that this model performed so poorly, the design looked promising.I work at boat suply store and we got the galvanised Epsilon 6kg in our store. It is very roughly built and the finish is quite rough. If you want pictures of this i can email you.
Wow! Would love to see more footage of that cobblestone seabed failure.
Maybe a “slippery” SS is here also a hindrance is this specific seabed?
Thank you for the videos
Good test! I was also very dissapointed with Epsilon´s performance. I expected it to become THE ANCHOR considering its shape is so similar to the higher scorers. As water performance is what really counts to me, my choice comes down to Vulkan or Spade because Excel and Viking are not available or difficult to get in Spain. Chances are I will go for the Spade for one simple reason aside of its top performance: it holds strongly to the bow fitting when fully pulled in. This is not achieved by Vulkan because its maximun curve of its shank is too high making it unstable in the roll bar. Spade´s shank curve has the highest angle of attack right at the welding of the fluke with the shank. This helps to bring the fluke in to acomodate firmly in the bow fitting. My boat is a French Beneteau. It shows here that Spade (also manufactured in France) designers took good care in making sure their anchors would hold strong agains the bow fittings of most French production boats. A good design feature in my opinion.
Hello Steve, 2 questions for you:
1. When will you test in clear sand on a regular basis? Clear sand is probably the most popular anchoring seabed.
2. Do you think that stainless steel glossy surface has a negative impact in the holding capability of any anchor when comparing the same model in galvanized steel?
Greeting Gran,
I want to answer your questions but I need you to clarify what you mean by "clear sand" and by "regular basis". Assuming identical shape and weight, I believe a polished stainless steel will anchor will have an advantage over a less smooth, galvanized anchor.
@@flygoodwin Hi Steve. Sorry, I meant “clean sand” as written in your chart. Where most anchors have a “X”.
I consider the clean sand seabed to be a very valuable test site. I'll get all those "X's" filled in asap. Certainly, new anchors will continue to be tested there.
The anchor Similar looking to the Volcan, I had much greater expectations
Interesting.
When is a roll bar not a roll bar... Interesting that an anchor that appears to have lots of good features did so poorly - I wonder if the short shank had something to do with it.
Hi Steve, I have a question regarding anchor weight. While most anchor manufacturers will recomend a 44 (or even 55) pound anchor for a 40 footer sailboat at 22.000 pounds, other manufacturers will recommend a 22 pound anchor. The logic behind promoting a low weight anchor is based in that the light anchor will be forced to dive in the seabed easier than a heavy anchor. I would defenitely love to carry a 22 pound anchor but I am still hesitant to go for such a low weight after 30 years of anchor reading in which all statements recommend to go for the biggest and heaviest anchor your bow can fit. What is your opinion about the above? Thanks in advance.
Gran, I believe that the advantages of having a larger anchor out-weigh the disadvantages. The variables that determine the needed anchor size are too numerous to list and many of them are unknowable, even to the skipper (bottom composition/debris, weather, how large is the neighboring boat that drags down on you, etc.). The person creating a "recommended" anchor size chart has an even greater challenge as they cannot know an even larger list of variables (Crew competence, Vessel windage, Does the vessel yaw at anchor?, Can the anchor set be viewed by the crew, Crew risk tolerance, Is the vessel well insured?, Is the leeward shore soft sand or jagged rocks?, etc).
Your tests of other anchors have shown that upturned mud palms at the back of the anchor fluke/base causes pressure and resistance, like an aeroplane’s wing flaps, that forces the nose of the anchor to point upwards to the sky and then to release. Not to mention contributing to mud accumulation in general. Really they should be downturned or flat at the back of the anchor. Downturned mud palms at the back might, again like an aeroplane, force the nose to dive down and neutral will let mud flow unhindered off the back of the anchor. I suggest this might be one reason for some of the poor results.
The upturned flaps seem like an obviously bad idea. The only advantage I could come up with is that they would resist forward motion.
Ross, in the heavy, cohesive seabeds that I often test, I believe the "upturned fluke trailing edges" hinder performance by promoting seabed sticking to the fluke. I see no indication of anchors "rotating" upward (toe up relative to trailing edge) at any time before or during releases. In fact, I notice the opposite.
Steve, any chance of doing a video on your camera rig setup? Or is there already one in the back catalogue? I'm interested in trying it out on our current anchor and using it to evaluate some home made anchors as I build them and get time to test. I'll accept a private video on condition of not sharing and not uploading any footage if necessary :-) No intention to "compete" just keen to learn from prior art rather than trying to develop a camera tether system of my own from scratch, but I will if I have to :-)
I added a segment (showing the camera float) to a recent video but I cannot remember which one. When I get a chance, I'll try and find it.
@@flygoodwin Might be easier for me to find as I've watched most of them, so I could just see which ones I haven't (anchors I don't like the design of, mostly). If you do remember, please do post. I might have a look tomorrow but today is done already.
Do you ever test the "Wedges Anchor"? Turkish brand
Have not tested a Wedge anchor.
Extremely disappointing given that Lewmar are marketing this anchor with a "Super-High Holding Power certification".