|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anchor article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|WikiProject Ships||(Rated C-class)|
Adding more information from the West Marine test
I participated in the West Marine 2006 test, as well as many other anchor tests, and have all of the raw data and graphs. If it is deemed appropriate, I can supply data regarding each individual anchor, the anchors compared, a Google Earth plot of where the test took place, or the strain graphs for each pull. I know this is too much for Wiki, but it could add to the factual information about each anchor style. I also have some information about holding power Vs. scope, but it is not conclusive.
Incidentally, I think that modern yachtsman's anchors should be divided as follows:
Danforth-type (or Lightweight Type); mention conventional steel, high strength steel, and aluminum Bruce-type (Bruce, Claw, Manta) Hinged Plow type (CQR) Non-hinged Plow type; further differentiate those with a plow style (Delta) and a scoop style (Rocna) Others (Bulwagga, XYZ, Box, etc.)
I think it would be interesting to describe how anchor designs are stabilized through ballasting (CQR), inherent design (Bruce, Bulwagga), "flatness" (Danforth), and roll-bar (Rocna, Manson, Wasi).
- Why would you not log in and file the report yourself, if the evidence is there? Springnuts (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Anchoring is not Anchor
Without some anchoring you have no anchor... I think the process should be introduced and touched upon here, without getting too in-depth, along with links to good references. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The grapnel section contains the statements "A grapnel is often quite light...its weight also makes it relatively easy to carry onboard." and "The shape is generally not very compact, and is difficult to stow, although there are a few collapsing designs available." The claims that it is relatively easy to carry onboard and that it is difficult to stow appear to be in conflict. 'Stowage' and 'carrying' might not be quite the same, and one claim relates to weight and the other to shape... but I think a conflict remains. Any thoughts on how to clarify? Barque (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The article describes Peter Bruce as being "from the Isle of Man." While Bruce Anchors (Scotland) is registered in the Isle of Man, Peter Bruce is actually from Scotland.12 Note that in this US Patent Office document, Bruce's address is given as Edinburgh.
In terms of Bruce anchor's holding power, the Bruce's power-to-weight performance was supposed to have been far better than conventional anchors.2 In this Practical Sailor test, a claw anchor was tested alongside two rollbar ones and, at the test loads used, found to perform as well or better. The testers noted, though, that tests made elsewhere suggested that the claw's ultimate power-to-weight ratio wasn't as good and suggested that users of claws who expected that it was possible that they would be anchoring in extreme conditions should buy larger-sized anchors.
← ZScarpia 01:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Commons category Stockless anchors
I just created the child cat Stockless anchors, but maybe it was a bad idea. I just saw so many items at the parent cat Anchors. Can cat Stockless anchors sit parallel to, say, Fluke anchors? Isn't the fluke a subset of stockless? Remove the cat? Anyway, a bit of guidance, please. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)