Future of the anchor design

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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........................

 

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

 

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!!!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

Drago

www.xyzanchor.com