Which indicates poor methodology, which means the experiment was useless. A good test would return consistent results for the same anchor in the same class of bottom; then you test in a range of bottoms, and observe consistent results in those ... and THEN you publish. You don't toss a few anchors overboard in one notoriously variable soil type,
speculate how well they landed, gather an utterly useless scatter of data points, and call it a scientific test. The lack of design and control in some of these 'tests' or 'comparisons' is frustrating. Because no clear patterns emerge, the authors sum up their article with a big shrug -- and we, the end user, are left no better informed than before we read the review.
All we learn is that, in thin shelley mud, it's hard to be certain
any anchor design will hold. No %#
[email protected], Sherlock. How about you do your next test on a concrete boat ramp -- let us know which anchor type performs best on that.