Future of the anchor design

[Drago]

Radical designs always bring doubts and suspicions. I am designer of the new XYZ Ω Anchor and believe that the future anchor generation will bring tremendous improvements. I also believe that the anchor holding power in the soft sea bottoms, such as the sand, should exceed the breaking strength of the anchor line. New technology enables an anchor to continue to dig deep with no possibility to breakout even when overpowered.

If there are questions about present and future anchors and anchoring I will be happy to reply.

Drago
www.xyzanchor.com

[safewalrus]

Here we go somebody else trying to redesign the wheel! What's wrong with a bloody great brick?

NO anchor will be perfect in every bottom or weather condition so why bother, any anchor is a compromise! The old style 'fishermans' is still the best anchor in rock and that's been arround now for a few years!

Still I guess if some idjit will buy it why not?!

[Drago]

Some anchors are more, some less compromise. A good anchor should be safe to use on the most weather conditions, on almost every sea bottom. A good anchor should be able to dig very deep in to almost any bottom and achieve holding power that exceeds breaking strength of the recommended rope size. A good anchor should work and hold onto rocks and should not deform under force regardless of the sea bottom. A good anchor should not breakout even when overpowered.

“Fisherman” style anchors are unusable unless they are ultra heavy. If it is my choice, I would rather have very heavy modern anchor then the very heavy fisherman anchor. I do have one; it serves as a great decoration on my balcony.

Invention continues. Old products are rarely better or as good as new ones.

Drago
www.xyzanchor.com

[Guest-3-12-09-9-21]

Do you have any pictures of your XYZ omega (can't find the right character key to put that fancy symbol there) anchor?

I imagine your anchors are for smaller vessels? On the larger anchor side there have been quite a few new anchors being invented - the strangest are the StevManta and the Bruce Dennla (might have spelled that one wrong). These are designed for very short scopes and will hold in a vertical lift situation...or so the propaganda says.

We had a frustrating experience with some of these new "VLA" anchors out here in the Gulf of Mexico (I won't single out which anchor company provided the bricks). We pre-set 12 of these anchors new anchors by holding 100% bollard pull (120 tons) for 30 minutes - the systems had only wire (no chain) in the systems.

When the rig got on location they connected the 12 anchor systems and cross-tensioned to something like 500 kips to shear the pins that would put the anchors in their 'vertical lift' mode.

They ended up with four of the 12 anchors slipping. Lots of finger pointing and accusations of not doing things correctly, etc. etc. I think the problem was the soil was too hard for the system.

We ended up having to go and replace one of the new anchors with an old style anchor to get it to hold.
--Chuck

[TeddyDiver]

Have you got any hard data to backup what you claim? To me it looks like a good anchor for sand and gravel, but I'm suspicious about it's ability to penetrate clay bottom which is the most common type.
However I place in my boat 3 anchors so they can have different characteristics in various circumstances.

[Frosty]

If it with stands a "vertical lift" how do you get it out?

[Drago]

Chuck, the 23 lbs XYZ Ω anchor is rated for boats up to 54”. Larger, 47lbs Ω is for boats up to 66’. On the Mac, “option/z" is the key for Ω - omega character. There are many pictures of the Ω on the XYZ website

Drago
www.xyzanchor.com

[Drago]

Teddy, Ω anchor is a completely new concept. The distance between the shank’s front attachment hole point, to the fluke’s front tip is 2.5 times shorter then the length of the fluke! During the setting process, the SHARP, FLAT, LONG and HEAVY KNIFE shape fluke penetrates with ease into any (even very hard) accessible bottoms. During the movement, this anchor disables the LONG and HEAVY fluke (almost 80% of the weight is in the fluke) to be lifted out of control and the consequence is a smooth penetration under the desired digging angle.

The worst performing anchors are the anchors with the roll bars, air containers and long, not-sharp shanks that are preventing an anchor to go deep. Once they reach a certain depth those anchors will drag, even in perfect sand.

You do not cut meat and vegetables with a pyramid but with SHARP, FLAT and LONG KNIFE. Knifes do not have any elements that can cause obstruction. When it comes to cutting, stabbing and penetration, old fashion sharp knifes were, they are and they always will be IRREPLACEABLE.

Please read FAQ on the XYZ website.

Drago
www.xyzanchor.com

[safewalrus]

Whos cutting Rock?

As for your statement that "old products are rarely better than new ones," may I suggest you then read on both your own postings and this one!

Remember the old saying "there's nothing new under the sun!"

having said the above you go on about the fact that -"when it comes to cutting, stabbing and penetration, old fashion sharp knifes were, they are and they always will be IRREPLACEABLE!" Looking at your other statement quoted do you think it's possible to make your mind up which one is correct?

[Drago]

When helicopter was invented it was a breakthrough. Rotation blades and propellers did exist before but we still have to give credit to Mr. Sikorsky for his invention. The Telephone, Internet, Teflon or Penicillin was also based on existing knowledge. Those inventions changed the world.

When it comes to cutting, stabbing and penetration, the old fashion sharp knife is IRREPLACEABLE. The knife was invented long time ago. Please tell me an anchor, except XYZ Anchor, that is or was using that technology successfully.

I would agree: There's nothing new under the sun. Old products are rarely better than new ones.

Drago
www.xyzanchor.com

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Drago

Once they reach a certain depth those anchors will drag, even in perfect sand.

Perfect sand has (in my exp) been the weakest point of "common" anchors. The ability to hold in sand is enough for me get a new one. But I'd like anyway to see some empiric test results...

[marshmat]

Drago,

Your anchor is certainly an intriguing design and I can see how it may perform well in loose bottoms such as sand or gravel.

While sharp flukes may provide some benefit in terms of bottom penetration, they sound like a serious liability when handling the thing on deck. Just how sharp are these tips?

One line on the product website gets my goat a bit - "Performance data on hard to penetrate bottoms are unreliable, therefore are not presented..." Unfortunately, few of us get to anchor in perfectly uniform sandy soils all the time. A great sand anchor is fine, but how does it handle rock, or weeds, or clay, or....? The advertising claim that it is equal to a much heavier Bruce or CQR may be valid in pure sand, but I suspect its light weight will become a liability in poor conditions. Any data on this?

The reports of testing to destruction of the anchor rode indicate that you would always break the rode- be it nylon, wire or chain- without damaging the anchor. That's great- but what happened when you moved to stronger rodes, if you did?

[safewalrus]

One of my points there Marshmat - which Drago neatly avoided by simply ignoring my comments! Tell's me (I don't know about anybody else) the thing ain't worth a damn in rock! Most aren't, which is why I wntioned that the old fishermans still proves best.

All anchors are a compromise, so if possible it behoves to carry several different styles, but conversely as any seaman (most of us around here) will tell you it ain't the anchor that holds the boat it's the cable / rope or to use that quaint term invented by the yachting press a few years ago the "rode". Depends what you use and the scope, all the anchor does (or ever has done) is hold the end of this 'bit of string' in one place!

There again, as many know, what the hell do I know about anything I've only been a humble seaman for some thirty seven years - we that use the stuff don't often know much about it!

save it's invariably useless for the job it's designed for

[Tim B]

Test data. Test Cases. Detailed reports.

THEN make your claim. Getting sued over an injury (or death) due to a slipping anchor which was later proved inadequate is NOT something you want to happen.

I would just like to pick up on one point that I think may be erroneous (or at least, ill-advised)...

"[the holding power] should exceed the breaking strength of the anchor line"

Sorry, not convinced by that. that infers that instead of slipping (wherein you still have some force (and an anchor) you now have no force, and no anchor.

Tim B.

[Fanie]

Wally, the "bloody great brick" you're referring to is actually called a Ford motor where I come from !

I was in a shop the other day that sells anchors, and I must admit, I was really not impressed. Most (as does the Ford motor) rely on WEIGHT to be any good. I'm not a body builder or weight lifter kinda guy so I don't like to push iron when I go fishing I have always made my own anchors, and with a lot of success too, and most of them are relative lightweight ones yet still an overkill for their purpose.

Eh Drago,

I like your anchor ! I've seen a similar anchor and they work exceptionally well in sandy or muddy bottoms. They could do ok in other bottoms too and may even cling or wedge into rocks, but one would have to test that. I also like the way the achor gets stored if these guys would care to look at the pics.

For sandy and muddy bottoms your anchor gets a thumbs-up from me.