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]

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 :mad: 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.

[Frosty]

Theres more to anchoring that holding. The chain does half the work or should I say helps. What about setting, recovering, the ability to re-set after the tide has turned, stowage( I hate Danforths).

Its possible that the plow may be improved upon but just a quick walk down the marina here full of cruising boats will quickly tell you the plow (CQR) is king followed quickly and becoming more popular by the day is the Bruce.

The safety of you boat and family is upon holding top the bottom. Becoming familiar and condfident with you anchor and knowing its capabilities takes years. Its not likely to be shunned for some thing else quickly.

The Australian plow that I use has my full confidence, it does what I want and more, It has never let me down and I don't need any more from it. It goes in and sets well and I can feel what it does be it from experience or other wise.

I do not envy your intention to design an anchor good enough to expect me to get rid of the one I have now for something I know nothing of.

[Fanie]

Wise words Frosty. Your life is really on the anchor-and-line at times. I don't like the danforth either.

Why hasn't someone made an anchor cleat with a shock absorder in it that would take the whiplash out of your neck each time the rope taunts in the waves ? Sure, like a car's shock absorber. I think it could work quite well. You may not have to spool out all 780 meter of anchor line you have...

The best car you have is the one you bought and that you like. If you like your anchor and it works for you, then it's the best one, stick behind it.

[artemis]

Why hasn't someone made an anchor cleat with a shock absorder in it that would take the whiplash out of your neck each time the rope taunts in the waves ? Sure, like a car's shock absorber. I think it could work quite well. You may not have to spool out all 780 meter of anchor line you have...
Your chain "rode" needs to be longer; you could use a "snubber" (sort of like big rubber band with the anchor line slack between the ends of the stretchable snubber); or if you still have problems, be thankful for the whiplash ' cause at least it tells you that the anchor's still holding in very heavy seas. :D

[Fanie]

sort of like big rubber band
You mean like a car tube ? We here in SA sometimes use them as head bands but not for anchor snubbers :D

Be too flimsy, perish too quickly. A shock could work well I'm sure.

[artemis]

You mean like a car tube ? We here in SA sometimes use them as head bands but not for anchor snubbers :D

Be too flimsy, perish too quickly. A shock could work well I'm sure.

No, they're frequently used as mooring line snubbers. Heavy duty "rubber" (like 2"+ in dia.) with an eye in each end. Pass the anchor line thru one eye; tie the eye to the line; pass the line thru the other eye - leaving a generous loop between the two; tie the line to the other eye; tie to anchor cleat. The "loop" allows the snubber to flex and also provides a "safety" if the snubber snaps.

[safewalrus]

the actual tire is also useful for larger vessels as a snubber when towing or alongside in heavy weather (it happens in some ports, the boat ranges quite a bit) line to tire, other line to to tire sort of thing.

Yeah I know in SA you had other more sensible uses for the car tire but if you ain't got any of them to get rid of........................

[Drago]

This is the method and standards that we have used for testing the most popular anchors and XYZ anchors. I suggest that boating magazine anchor tests should be conducted as:

The Sand Test

The test should be conducted by an independent government agency (such as ABS) and observe by media. All the anchors should be tested on the same well-known location that has a large and equal quality anchoring bottom.
The testing vessel should have at least 600 HP/45,000 displacement. All anchors should be within similar weight category 25 – 30 lbs. The line should be all new 3/4” three strand twisted Nylon rope.

- Each anchor should be tested for its maximum holding power, with a straight, 90°, 135° and 180° in 5:1 to 2:1 scope (start with low RPM).

- Same test, as above, but with anchors that are well set and with a sudden impact force (with maximum RPM). Boat’s starting point would be, 90°, above the anchor (1:0 scope).

- Once set the vessel should make a full 360° circle around the anchor, at maximum RPM - 5:1 and 2:1 scope.

Anchors should not breakout at any moment, on any test (including 2:1 scope).
On all the tests and on the sudden impact force test, the anchor’s holding power should exceed breaking strength of the rope.

After each test, anchors should be examined for damage.

//////

I doubt that such a brutal test would be “allowed”. Who has guts to do it and print the results? In our tests, some of the “top rated anchors” sold by the largest marine suppliers, ended up on the bottom of the list. Conducting such a test would make small anchor manufactures and consumers winners. Are we ready for the truth?

Drago

www.xyzanchor.com

[safewalrus]

fantastic - but in only one kind of bottom, yet again the seabed funnily enough is not all the same! What works in one location is totally useless in another because of this all anchors are a compromise!!

Unless of course you only advocate anchoring in one kind of bottom! Kind of limits your cruising area a bit doesn't it?

Pretty pointless too - bit like the highly original name!!!

[Drago]

I would agree that a good anchor should work in a most sea bottoms.

But, to be eligible, to be tested on hard to penetrate bottoms, such as rocks and weeds, anchor MUST first pass sand and soft – hard mud test. Anchors that do not hold on a mud and sand are worthless!

“Fishermen” type anchor WILL NOT work better on rocks then any decent anchor (in the same weight category) that holds well on sand.


Drago

www.xyzanchor.com

[Kay9]

I would have to do some disagreeing here. A fishermen would work better then any anchor of the same wieght in rocks coral. A dunn or danforth would work better then your anchor in same conditions. A grapnell would be the best choice in rock or coral.

Your anchor will suffer the same dragging effect the CQR, DUNN and DANFORTH dose in a situation where current/wind forces a pull in 180 deg. changes. In this case a mushroom will work better, which is why they are used on bouys and lightships. BTW I loved this review about your anchor:
http://powerandmotoryacht.com/gearreview/boat-anchor-test/index4.aspx

K9

[Drago]

Have you tested XYZ anchor? XYZ Ω Anchor is our forth generation.

We do not sell XYZ anchors through West Marine.

Look at this picture from West Marine/Sail Test.
Do you believe what you see or what it says?




Drago
www.xyzanchor.com

[Kay9]

You came here making claims. Here let me refresh your memory.

Claim #1 "New technology enables an anchor to continue to dig deep with no possibility to breakout even when overpowered."

Claim #2 "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."

Claim #3" 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. "

So with these AMAZING claims. I went to your website, and then I did something thats just unheard of. I did some more investigation. I did NOT take your word as if that of god, on anchors. I know it was silly of me, but Im just a jerk that way. And look what I found, the LARGEST boating organization in the US didnt like your anchor. Matter of fact they couldnt get it to set at all. Now Im not saying this is the end all of tests. But you came HERE and made claims. I checked and, though I think you might have a replacement for a CQR you certainly do not have the anchor for all surfaces. I Would like to see the data from the USCG when you get your USCG certification. Untill then I dont care where you sell your anchor, or through what distributer you choose for your marketing. I want some independant tests, and I would suggest you tone down your rehtoric about your product.

K9

[Drago]

I understand that you are suspicious about any new products and its promotions.

But, have you read the 2006 Anchor Tests done by Practical Sailor, the Powerboat Reports and The American Bureau of Shipping done on the same anchor at the same time?

I am only interested in facts. I can have a dialog about a taste of an apple only with somebody who has also tasted it.

Do you have any comments about this enclosed image?

Drago
www.xyzanchor.com

[marshmat]

On all the tests and on the sudden impact force test, the anchor’s holding power should exceed breaking strength of the rope. I too have to disagree with this. If you can break the rope, get a stronger rope. The anchor should come loose, and thus have a chance to re-set itself. If the rope fails while the anchor remains set, you are now being blown onto a lee shore with no ground tackle.

Would it be possible to post copies of some independent tests where the XYZ prototype set correctly on its own? PMY's tests are known for being reasonably thorough and impartial. In the case of West Marine, they have a reputation to protect- they charge high prices and have to be able to back what they sell in order to justify it. So it's often in their best interests to prove that something works- either because they already sell it, or because if something new does work, they want in on it. I fully believe both West and PMY when they say they could not get the XYZ to set. Since both tend to do their tests in ideal conditions, your anchor should have performed superbly. Apparently it did not.

I don't doubt that the thing holds very well once set- that much is not difficult to surmise from its shape. I do have questions about how reliably the thing can set, especially in less than perfect conditions, given that it needs to penetrate very deep in order to work.

[Drago]

Matt, have you seen the enclosed image from the WM test.

Drago

www.xyzanchor.com

[Kay9]

Yes Drago, I read both. I was actually trying to post the link to pratical sailor earlier, but I lost my internet. Ill try to find it again.

Once again, Ill say that you may very well have a product that is better then the CQR plow in mud and soft sand. Pratical sailor said this as well. But it is NOT the one anchor for all conditions. The one in which Safewalrus and maself were talking about specifically was hard ground and rocks. I dont see your anchor as a replacement for these conditions versus an oldfashion, or fishermen anchor.

No I have not tested your anchor. I buy anchors for several boats here on the west coast of the US and I recommend products to a lot of my clients. At the moment Im not convinced you have the CQR beat. Ill wait untill someone with more intestinal fotitude gives your anchor a try in heavy weather and writes a review before Im willing to even consider it.

K9

[safewalrus]

But, to be eligible, to be tested on hard to penetrate bottoms, such as rocks and weeds, anchor MUST first pass sand and soft – hard mud test.

www.xyzanchor.com

Why??

I suppose that when it comes down to it the ultimate test is on a lee shore in a raging gale - when somebody gets caught in that situation, but NOT on a sandy bottom (not all the world has a sandy bottom you know) and lives to tell the tale I might just pay attention until then the final test comes into play

WHO will buy the thing


I KNOW I WON'T!:mad:

[Frosty]

Its pretty normal for cruising yachts to have a choice of anchors ,--at least two different types of their choice, a plow and a Bruce is popular,-- actually on the bowsprit ready for use.
Further tucked away Im sure you will find a Fishermans folded in the lazzarette

Some may even carry more as the bottoms around the world vary. As I live in mud in the Malacca straits a plow will do everything everyday. I very rarely anchor in deeper than 3 meters.

What is it they say "horses for courses"

Trying to make one anchor do all is pointless and probably impossible.

[TeddyDiver]

Trying to make one anchor do all is pointless and probably impossible.

Excactamente!
As I said earlier I'm willing to purchase one XYZ if it's supreme in sand, which so far is only a claim, wheather it's worth a wetted log or not in other circumstances.

[safewalrus]

I'm sticking to me 'ouse brick on a bit o string!

[masalai]

How about a "bit of string" attached to a brick house Safie? Ooops :D

[Frosty]

I don't know why sand is considered to be the perfect bottom. A sandy beach is mostly difficult to get into. I have given up on some occasions trying to get the anchor in and radioed a nearby ship and asked for permission to tie up to her for the night.---No not a moving one!!! one parked!!

On a very calm night I had the same problem and purposely dumped the lot in a pile just to hold the boat in position for a while. Didnt get much sleep.

Ive heard of some guys diving down with a shovel and burry them, but he was Australian.
What I have done is leave it a few hours to settle in and then pull,- that works sometimes. This is with the plow ofcourse a bruce would have been a better choice for those situations.

Glutinous sandy mud is the best stuff.

[safewalrus]

I don't know why sand is considered to be the perfect bottom.

After several wives and girlfriens I can assure you it isn't, no where near:P

[masalai]

Precisely Safie, were you reading my deleted post whilst I was editing frosty's #37 above? It got toooo sick/degenerate/sexy for publication (just by adding alternate meanings to some of the phrases/words) :P:P:P:D

[Frosty]

Sick people!!

[masalai]

Does that mean that you too are a "sick people"? in that the multiple meaning item was your text:D:P

[Frosty]

Yes sir:P :P :P

[safewalrus]

To the person who gave me negative points - better negative points for killing a discussion than killing someone for the negative use of something inadequate! Now go take some more but have the guts to say who - COWARD!

[masalai]

What thread Safie?

I have been the victim of the phantom red pointer. I gave again in that thread and called the gutless swine, but said idiot did not come forward. Others have been done also. It would be well to be rid of those fools...

Frosty, admitted to giving me a red dot, but I think that was a shaky hand & booze?? - does he drink? or pretend? :D. The lad has become quite mellow of late - must be having too much fun to care about distant ****-heads?:D:D:D

[masalai]

Feedback poster please look here:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21157&page=7

[Pericles]

What am I missing here? Drago posts #28, an excerpt from a magazine,which states the XYZ anchor wouldn't set in sand and asks for comments? Is he promoting the anchor or not?

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=18514&d=1201741586

As it happens, I made my choice some time ago. The genuine, the superior, the often copied, but never equaled, ROCNA!!!!! Go NZ!!

http://www.rocna.com/main.php?section=what&chapter=features&page=0&PHPSESSID=8a1a472deb6eb4e93d6ee2d546fc92e9

But then, I'm not stupid. Yah yah, yah yah, yah! :P :P :P :P :P :P

I got up too early!

Pericles

[safewalrus]

Missy Lee this thread! No doubt 'tis the same numptie who ails us all, was my turn again is all! But it is annoying.......

Pericles, there are many and varied types of anchor, some good some bad some indifferent! All have different characteristics is different bottoms, it behoves a good 'cruiser' to have several different ones to suit the bottom in the area of choice as and when you get to it!

The problem here is the fact that this Dago (is that spelt right?) has stated his anchor is brilliant in sand and mud -nothing else matters!! That's it!! But it would appear that its all talk he cannot substantiate the claim in sand let alone anything else, not that according to him any other bottom matters!!

That's his problem, but he won't be selling many anchors that way!!

[Pericles]

Safe,

The Rocna hooks up, no trubs, bruv! I think you'll be impressed with their videos. Boostedyourrep! All one word.:P

Bugger! You've had too many from me. I'll try again after spreading my largess wide.

Pericles

[safewalrus]

Pericles, yep the video looks impressive must look further into it! Liked the er, misuse of English! Impressed!

[marshmat]

After all this, I still come back to my favourite anchors.... the "3 bags of concrete poured into an old car tire" and the "100-dollar, 500-kg block of cheap reinforced concrete". That last one has more holding power per dollar than anything else I've seen.

At the end of the day, I don't see how spending $300-$500 on a light anchor that only works in a few bottoms is worth it. I'd rather spend $200 each on two very different and much heavier anchors that, between them, will handle the vast majority of conditions (and can be used together when you don't want to drift 50 m the other way when the wind changes).

[safewalrus]

Agree Marshmat as a famous American (can't remember who, could have been 'Pete' Culler) once said "a lightweight steam roller can't do the job" seems to fit ideally here