The chain needs more scope to provide a more realistic test. In other words, the chain must be longer to form a bigger catenary or loop that would weigh down the anchor shank. This would cause the anchor to dig in downwards more efficiently. In the video the anchor shank (in the first test) is clearly pulled up, preventing it to dig in. For a more realistic test; use a longer chain or keep the pulling force of the shorter chain level with the ground. Otherwise, thanks for the effort.
Christo Swanepoel actually realistically in heavier weather when the anchor really need to hold, the catenary effect will be close to non existing. What would change the test to a better one would be if the anchor was under water and not just surfacing.
@@tom-erikjohansen456 it is because it is a small light weight anchor and such anchors struggle in hard compacted sand or clay and grass conditions. A 15 kg mantus or higher would set first time every time so to speak.... You can reduce weight of a well designed anchor right down in soft sand but not this substrate.
If you used a 15kg Mantus it would set first time every time, the extra weight was why the rocna 10kg did best. Even the best small/light anchors can struggle in grassy hard compacted sand. But the Manork and Adriatic anchors are very good, maybe slightly better than mantus, but would like to see independent testing before concluding.
Test not right. This newbie to anchors dose not understand scope or chain weight. This test is rubbish. Big anchors need heavy chain and plenty of it. Test is a fail. Sorry.
No need for heavier chain as there is no rope attached to be weighted down and the person pulling the chain is physically incapable of breaking the chain. It is a pull along the beach at low tide....
@@railroad9000 out of curiosity, would not the weight and pressure of a few meters of water also help the anchor dig in and set, along with the already mentioned scope? I'm not a sailor just watch sailing vids :-)
@@vktechtv4244 The chain serves a three fold purpose. 1. The chain helps keep the pull on the anchor more parallel to the bottom. 2. With the boat moving up and down, and back and forth, with wind and current pulling on the boat, allows the rode (chain and line) to flex up (catenary) as needed but the chain pulls it back down for reason 1. 3. Chain helps prevent abrading the line and chafing though. Does this make sense?
@@railroad9000 Yep, complete sense, as in the more chain lying on the seabed as you reverse or pull back, it assist in keeping the anchor down and it digging into the seabed...
My Rocna 10 digs down very hard every time within half a metre, and it stays there - every time, even in harsh conditions on a 5 tonnes boat. How you manage not to make all these well known anchors set is quite magic...
To be fair, he only didn't manage to set the first one (Mantus). The other ones did just fine. But look closely, you can see that he dragged the first one very differently. Mantus is an excellent brand, as is the 2nd, Rocna. I don't know about the last one, but they seem to sponsor the voor. He does drag it very gently to make sure it sets.
I did never put my anchor on an beach! From my point of view it is a tiny bit to late to set the anchor. I'm used to place my anchor in a water dept were my boat is still floating... Aren't there areas were you have to pay a lot of fine in case you anchor on top of sea gras? So better put it on sand patches!
The test is clearly flawed as all you true boaters are aware, unless you’re somehow anchoring in six inches of water with so short a scope of rode there’s no catenary effect. The anchors used in the test aren’t even of a similar weight. I will say that the last anchor being so much smaller and yet performing better under similar conditions is intriguing though.
What a completely silly test. Clearly the person doing it has no understanding of scope and the angle of pull that the chain should pull. Why would they go to the trouble of this so called test rather than doing a simple google search on how anchors work and how they should be set. The letter would have saved time, effort and hopefully embarrassment.
This is not a test.1st no scope 2. Never in grass. 3 not the same weight anchors. This is misleading and dangerous. I do not use any of these anchor soI have no dog in the fight.
I really appreciate the effort this guy is putting in the testing. Thank you for all the hard work, and keep trying! I have commented on two of his videos already. I subscribed, of course. First was a "Hall" anchor, but the flukes were nowhere close to a Hall, and that anchor had no crown plate and shoulders at all. Also, there was no adequate mass. Not all anchors using the flukes, but the weight as the primary holding factor. The other was the one looks suitable for the rocky bottom, but he tested it in the mud for some reason. I also need to say here what others already did several times: there is virtually no chain out for the job. Maybe he intended to demonstrate how to break out and aweigh anchors and set sail. If so, I like to see the anchors performing exactly the designed way. After all, we need to pull them back easily into the hawse pipe at the end. I also like the way he loves MANORK after those testing series. And indeed that seems almost the best anchor for him, the no-chain out, no motoring back guy. For manual handling and no chain-out, it worth trying the Admiralty anchor as well. It will stop you immediately.
@@lawrencegreenwood4002 nope, it is because it is a light weight anchor, this small version of mantus works well in soft sand. You need heavier version like 15 kg or higher to set first and every time in hard compacted clay or sand grassy conditions.
This ladies and gentlemen is why you need more scope.
The chain needs more scope to provide a more realistic test. In other words, the chain must be longer to form a bigger catenary or loop that would weigh down the anchor shank. This would cause the anchor to dig in downwards more efficiently. In the video the anchor shank (in the first test) is clearly pulled up, preventing it to dig in. For a more realistic test; use a longer chain or keep the pulling force of the shorter chain level with the ground. Otherwise, thanks for the effort.
Christo Swanepoel actually realistically in heavier weather when the anchor really need to hold, the catenary effect will be close to non existing. What would change the test to a better one would be if the anchor was under water and not just surfacing.
@@tom-erikjohansen456 it is because it is a small light weight anchor and such anchors struggle in hard compacted sand or clay and grass conditions. A 15 kg mantus or higher would set first time every time so to speak.... You can reduce weight of a well designed anchor right down in soft sand but not this substrate.
And yet the smallest anchor also immediately set
If you used a 15kg Mantus it would set first time every time, the extra weight was why the rocna 10kg did best. Even the best small/light anchors can struggle in grassy hard compacted sand. But the Manork and Adriatic anchors are very good, maybe slightly better than mantus, but would like to see independent testing before concluding.
Which is which?
Test not right. This newbie to anchors dose not understand scope or chain weight. This test is rubbish. Big anchors need heavy chain and plenty of it. Test is a fail. Sorry.
No need for heavier chain as there is no rope attached to be weighted down and the person pulling the chain is physically incapable of breaking the chain. It is a pull along the beach at low tide....
Exactly.
Not enough scope of chain!
@@railroad9000 out of curiosity, would not the weight and pressure of a few meters of water also help the anchor dig in and set, along with the already mentioned scope? I'm not a sailor just watch sailing vids :-)
@@vktechtv4244 The chain serves a three fold purpose.
1. The chain helps keep the pull on the anchor more parallel to the bottom.
2. With the boat moving up and down, and back and forth, with wind and current pulling on the boat, allows the rode (chain and line) to flex up (catenary) as needed but the chain pulls it back down for reason 1.
3. Chain helps prevent abrading the line and chafing though.
Does this make sense?
@@railroad9000 Yep, complete sense, as in the more chain lying on the seabed as you reverse or pull back, it assist in keeping the anchor down and it digging into the seabed...
My Rocna 10 digs down very hard every time within half a metre, and it stays there - every time, even in harsh conditions on a 5 tonnes boat.
How you manage not to make all these well known anchors set is quite magic...
To be fair, he only didn't manage to set the first one (Mantus). The other ones did just fine.
But look closely, you can see that he dragged the first one very differently. Mantus is an excellent brand, as is the 2nd, Rocna. I don't know about the last one, but they seem to sponsor the voor. He does drag it very gently to make sure it sets.
I did never put my anchor on an beach! From my point of view it is a tiny bit to late to set the anchor. I'm used to place my anchor in a water dept were my boat is still floating... Aren't there areas were you have to pay a lot of fine in case you anchor on top of sea gras? So better put it on sand patches!
Don't ask this guy to anchor your boat
OR TIE YOUR SHOES!!!
lovely grass and algae DESTRUCTION...
I had that strong reaction too. Thoughtless test.
How do you "test anchors" but have zero clue how an anchor works?
You should send one to Steve Goodwin every one watches his tests. Good advertising for you
The test is clearly flawed as all you true boaters are aware, unless you’re somehow anchoring in six inches of water with so short a scope of rode there’s no catenary effect. The anchors used in the test aren’t even of a similar weight. I will say that the last anchor being so much smaller and yet performing better under similar conditions is intriguing though.
What a completely silly test. Clearly the person doing it has no understanding of scope and the angle of pull that the chain should pull. Why would they go to the trouble of this so called test rather than doing a simple google search on how anchors work and how they should be set. The letter would have saved time, effort and hopefully embarrassment.
you cannot test anchors this way
Muito bom o vídeo parabéns 👏
This test are flowed.
This is not a test.1st no scope 2. Never in grass. 3 not the same weight anchors. This is misleading and dangerous. I do not use any of these anchor soI have no dog in the fight.
0:00 First anchor is MANTUS.
1:30 second anchor is ROCNA
2:20 third anchor is MANORK professional marine anchors
What does "Professional mariner anchor" mean regarding to anchors of shown size?
a ponta da ancora do primeiro treste esta evidentemente virada para cima.
I really appreciate the effort this guy is putting in the testing. Thank you for all the hard work, and keep trying! I have commented on two of his videos already. I subscribed, of course. First was a "Hall" anchor, but the flukes were nowhere close to a Hall, and that anchor had no crown plate and shoulders at all. Also, there was no adequate mass. Not all anchors using the flukes, but the weight as the primary holding factor. The other was the one looks suitable for the rocky bottom, but he tested it in the mud for some reason. I also need to say here what others already did several times: there is virtually no chain out for the job. Maybe he intended to demonstrate how to break out and aweigh anchors and set sail. If so, I like to see the anchors performing exactly the designed way. After all, we need to pull them back easily into the hawse pipe at the end.
I also like the way he loves MANORK after those testing series. And indeed that seems almost the best anchor for him, the no-chain out, no motoring back guy. For manual handling and no chain-out, it worth trying the Admiralty anchor as well. It will stop you immediately.
He likes the manork because this is an advert for them , check the description
Exactly, he doesn't hide that it is sponsored, or that he just works for them
You should never anchor in eelgrass if you can avoid it, much less intentionally destroy it like this. Boo.
No scope.......
It's all really rather pointless as manork.com does not exist. If you want one, you can't buy one.
Is this a joke?
INDEED IT IS!!!
No. It is real
First video I’ve seen the Mantus not set
First video I've seen a human pulling it on an angle where it wouldn't set too! Hahaha.
@@lawrencegreenwood4002 nope, it is because it is a light weight anchor, this small version of mantus works well in soft sand. You need heavier version like 15 kg or higher to set first and every time in hard compacted clay or sand grassy conditions.