The Sail Magazine anchor test had more than one test per anchor
. They tested all the anchors
at three different locations with multiple sets, pulls and scopes and they then reported exactly what the results were. These tests were done on "HARD BOTTOMS" and they did not hide that fact. They needed a boat like the Shana Rae to get to their ultimate hold strength goal of 5000 pounds. You simply can't generate 5k pounds of thrust with a sailboat. Max thrust for my 44hp diesel and three blade prop is about 500 lbs+/- (data Michigan Wheel thrust calculator)..
People on this and other forums have made odd claims that Sail gave preference and may have "fixed" the results to satisfy advertisers?
Using this logic Sail Magazine really cut off their supply of ad money that month. It seems three of the anchors
that got beat up the worst were the LEWMAR
Claw(Bruce type), the Lewmar CQR
(Yes they now own CQR
) and the West Marine Performance 20. Lewmar
is one of Sails larger advertisers! In that months issue they had one full pager and one quarter page ad.
West Marine's VP of product development Chuck Hawley was actually involved in the testing and WM also spends ad money with Sail. Three of the best performers Manson, Hydrobubble & Rocna had zero, zilch, nada or no advertising in Sail Magazine at all.
While I agree with NCC320 that this test was very "flawed" or biased its just not in the same way he sees it.
IMO these tests were very biased, in favor of, when it came to the "tried and true" CQR
& Claw but NOT their competitors. The testers/investigators went so far as to have "in-depth discussions" to figure out a way to get the Lewmar Claw and CQR
to set better so they could at least get load test results.
Now bear in mind this test was ONLY a hard sand test so you can't translate these results to a soft mud bottom but the authors made it quite clear that these were HARD SAND tests not "pudding sets", something even a cinder block will do well in...
Here's a direct quote: "The CQR is another tried-and-true anchor that yielded surprising results. The maximum load we recorded during our first three pulls on 5:1 scope was a very short spike up to 350 pounds, but most of the time we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom."
Remember that Lewmar (Claw/CQR/Delta) is a HUGE advertiser and HUGE vendor to West Marine and Rocna, Manson & Hydrobubble were nowhere in sight and had spent basically ZERO ad revenue with Sail and were not distributed by West Marine at the time.
This to me sounds like they perhaps had to give the CQR
a little "extra bias" by going slower than with other anchors
and trying to "manually coax" it to set. How can anyone claim bias against the CQR
or the Claw or the West Marine Performance 20 when they clearly gave them preferential treatment? West Marine went so far as to actually be honest and admit in print that their own West marine branded anchor basicalluy sucked at setting in a hard bottom. Bias??
This "extra coaxing" seems a little unfair if you are replicating test results using the SAME technique with all anchors
to make it as fair as possible.
The results don't surprise me as I own a Bruce and a CQR
and though they perform well they are not always quick setters (CQR) or high holding (Bruce). My assertion is that 80% of boaters never actually set an anchor
and get very lucky using basically a "rope on a rock" in rather benign summer conditions. Remember hard bottoms are HARD to set in and this was not an easy pudding test liek many of the other anchor tests we read about.
I suggest some of you begin diving on your anchors
in a shallow spot to see what's going on down there I think you'd be surprised.
I used a Bruce 33 for years but about 20% of the time in soft mud bottoms, even with multiple sets, I could still drag it around the cove with my boats engine. Your sailboats aux engine should NOT be able to budge a properly sized and set anchor
That being said the clones, like the Lewmar Claw are NOT Bruce anchors
! The angles and flukes rarely if ever match that of the original and the original was heat treated...
Yes these tests were "BIASED" just in favor of the Claw and CQR
and not the competition...
West Marine still does NOT sell the Hydro Bubble though they did begin selling the Rocna and the Manson Supreme shortly after the tests because they were clearly impressed.
So let's recap:
1-They slammed one of their biggest advertisers & vendors while at the same time giving thumbs up to a company that still does not advertise with them and was not even sold by them at the time.
2-They slammed thier own product WM Performance 20 and praised one three they were not even selling a the time.
3- They gave preferential treatment ONLY to the tried and true old gen anchors but not the new gen.
Just another perspective..
P.S. As for your cost / more margin argument. My Port Supply discount on a Rocna is roughly 15.5%. Yet my Port Supply discount on a CQR is 18.3%. What this means WM makes more margin on the CQR than they do on a Rocna as my pricing matrix takes me to a base level of profit margin with my Port Supply account.
Here's the killer! The Lewmar Claw is a 32% discount for me with Port Supply meaning the least expensive anchor they sell is also their largest margin anchor product!