xyz anchor

[Maia]

Have used XYZ for over TWO Years

New member and am following the thread on XYZ vs other anchors! We read about the anchor in PS and acquired the early version in '05. We were impressed with the design-bat like, or manta shaped. From an engineering standpoint it made sense. Since then, we have acquired Extreme 27 and the new Omega model. Although we do sail a Liberty Dinghy (been sailing big and little boat for 50 years), the primary use for the XYZ is on MAIA, our Grand Banks 42 Trawler(34,000 lbs). Early on we gave up on CQR-we drug in the soft Bay ooze almost every anchoring attempt. With XYZ, we have anchored over 100 nights in all extremes of weather in sand and Bay ooze. I have to admit that we did drag once! The XYZ had embeded itself in a 4 foot log about 6 inches in diameter. We have total confidence in this equipment and use it as our primary. We trust of vessel and our lives to the XYZ. We have a second XYZ at the ready, and a Delta held in reserve. We drop it, let out scope, put our girl in reverse, and it sets every time. Usually, it is quite apparent that it's trying to dig to China-we have to pull over and forward and "work" it back out. Drago (the developer) should be congragulated for "breaking the mold". Am willing to share experiences wtih XYZ anytime.No interest, just a very satisfied customer.

 

[brian stephens]

xyz

John I have bought an xyz ancher in the last 3 months and all I can say is what xyz say on there web site is fact no messing I have dragged all over the med been up all night now I sleep in peace its wonderful

 

[XYZ]

abuse of this list

I am the inventor of the XYZ Anchor. Mediocre products are made for uninformed consumers. They are the victims of ignorance and power of marketing. It is easier to brainwash an uninformed consumer than to go back to drawing board. I have no interested in starting a lame discussion, so I do not participate on forums that allow self-promoters with their talking buddies to dominate. I am open to dialogue with anyone who has invested serious thought and has an in depth knowledge of the issues. Such dialogue could be an “eyes opener” that may and should have significant market influence. Mediocre anchor producers are successfully preventing that from happening.  It is a fact that only purpose of the anchor’s roll bars, long heavy and bendable shanks and front fluke’s heavy lead or steel ballast is to adopt a good setting attitude. It is a fact that those elements present a technical compromise that is a significant obstacle to anchor’s deep penetration. I believe that www.xyzanchor.com FAQ would be hard to dispute: http://www.xyzanchor.com/faq.html It has initiate worldwide interest. I am open for dialogue based on scientific facts. Drago

 

[newly anonymous]

scientific facts aside...

...I find myself shying away from this anchor simply because of the way the flukes project forward on a bow roller. Seems to me that within three or four good jibes an asymmetrical spinnaker will find a way to shred itself on such a contraption.

 

[Ross]

Drago, I have asked this same question in several

discussions and seem to get pushed off . The question is in two parts; First part is if a new state of the art anchor of a given weight will hold a boat will an old style anchor 50 percent heavier with chain appropriate to the size of the anchor hold as well? Has that test ever been done? The second part of the question has to do with wind shifts. In all of my experience the wind shifts gradually and clocks either clockwise or counter clockwise so that an anchored boat would pull on the rode/anchor while describing a semicircle. Won't the anchor plow a semicircular path in the bottom in that case?

 

[Cap'n Ron]

Worthless 'happy-hookers'

I read these posts with some interest and a few chuckles.Firstly, a 'fortress' is a glorified danforth, and anyone that leaves a boat with only a danforth for holding is either inexperienced or just playing the odds, it WILL drag. It is a lunch hook or for holding while you are onboard and have an anchor watch.Worst Marine will sell you anything, a fortress (sounds real 'solid') or magic holding dust if you will buy it.The CQR has been proven by many cruisers, and if you have the right size and catenary you cannot improve the wheel.The Bruce was designed by the best engineers in the world in order to hold offshore drilling rigs in the North Sea & English Channel.It has proven itself too, but you need to go up one grade for weight, and it does not have the swing of the CQR from the moving pin which makes the CQR far superior to the other lesser hooks like the delta.Mud is NOT the best bottom for a CQR but holds still, but Bruce is a bit better here, but can fill with one large mudball or a large rock - not a good thing for the Bruce. The Danforth holds well in mud or sand but beware of wind or tidal shift as any seaweed, coke can, etc, can foul the flukes so they cannot reverse and so it ends up dragging flat on the bottom and failing as they always do.Now I have heard folks say, "I've been using so & so (read danforth) for years and never drug, don' need no chain neither."They anchor in the same place and have been lucky enough NOT to been around during a large angle wind back/clock or were luckier still that when that danforth flipped over it reset with nothing caught in the flukes as they are apt to do.Now I am not responsible for who loves this or that, or will not listen to reason here. The why I attempted to explain for at least one of these.I am simply sharing fifty years of seagoing knowledge, but many on this site seem to have a salesman convince them, a few minor 'tests' do it, or let the pocketbook decide, but two facts are clear here, 1) there is no perfect anchor for all conditions, and 2) there are many here that give advice that do not know what they are talking about.

 

[John Nantz]

Nice Post Cap'n Ron

Good assessment of the various popular anchors and I like the "magic holding dust" part, too.Seems like everyone is looking for the inexpensive one-size-fits-all solution to a solid anchoring solution and for some newbies it will take time before they figure this out. An anchor system isn't one of those places where one should consider to go "cheap". Experienced cruisers will almost always have a CQR on the bow and it's for a good reason - it works the best under most conditions and is about as close to a no-brainer as you can get. Having said that, my own anchor is a Delta but an oversize one but if I had to do it over again I'd opt for the CQR, price be dammed.Add some good chain, and don't scrimp here, either. Shackles - don't buy anything made in Asia. Get quality. This isn't a place to scrimp a few pennies. And an oversize rode doesn't hurt, either.Remember, a good ground tackle system will help you sleep nights.

 

[Maine Sail]

John,..

What size is your boat? I have two genuine CQR's (25 LB. & 35 Lb.) I'd love to sell!!

 

[John Nantz]

35-ft

Main sail: it's a Hunter 35 but it's in Puget Sound. Those things weigh a lot so shipping would probably be a lot too. A 35-pounder is the smallest I'd have on the bow and if I had my druthers it'd be the next size above that, even.Just got into this post by reading only a few of the latest replys and after posting went back and read some of the earlier replies - wow! Maybe I should back out!

 

[XYZ]

Anchor Facts

Ross, when the pull on the rode changes to a different horizontal angle from the one that originally set the anchor (i.e. a wind direction shift) good anchor self corrects quickly to re-establish its maximum holding power angle. All anchors have an optimum maximum holding power angle of pull when the rode pulls from straight ahead, over the center of the tip. Just 6° off, will REDUCE the holding power BY UP TO 70%! If an anchor cannot correct itself quickly, it will break out in a short distance. In the XYZ field and a computer simulation tests just a few anchors could rotate around anchor’s vertical axes and achieve constant optimum position. CQR is not one of them. It is a romantic history.It is conventional wisdom that a 40lbs anchor will have greater holding power than a 20lbs anchor. But that is mainly because a 40lbs anchor has a larger fluke area. Weight, by itself, contributes little to holding power. Fluke surface area and design are the main factors that determine how well an anchor holds. The weight of an anchor does affect how well the anchor can penetrate weeds or hard surface bottoms, however. So for any given weight anchor, maximum holding power will be obtained BY DESIGNING THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF THE ANCHOR'S WEIGHT INTO THE FLUKE ITSELF, to give the largest fluke area possible for the weight of the anchor.

 

[Ross]

Dargo, Thank you for you response. I think that

romance is not the only factor that accounts for CQR's reputation. Too many people have used them successfully for many years for this to be simply a love affair with tradition. There must be more to the equation than we see in the limited testing that gets done.

 

[XYZ]

romance

I have two CQRs – 20kg and 35kg and since I have been using them for a few decades they are not for sale. I also have Nikon F2 film camera – I have made my best pictures with it.From film I have switched to digital, my new anchor is the best and latest 21st can offer. The Invention Continues.

 

[Ross]

Dargo has a test ever been done to determine if a

plow or Bruce wiil stay set in a four hour 180 degree winde shift? That is easy enought to set up on the beach with a bulldozer and anchor and rode. For extreme conditions most prudent people will allow at least a 10:1 scope, have tests ever been conducted under thse conditions? There must be a very good reason the CQR and Bruce have not fallen out of favor. I would like to know what it is. I am quite certain that your anchor or the Rocna would also perform very well in the same test but I for one want to know why CQR and Bruce have remained in high favor for so long.

 

[Stu Jackson]

WHY?: There must be a very good reason the CQR and Bruce have not fallen out of

Simple: It's because of inertia and the fact that spending $400 for a new anchor usually isn't on most folks' list of priorities.It'll take awhile, but I feel it's important to have a better anchor than relying on past "stuff" that has now been improved upon.We anchored in a sandy roadstead a month ago and our Bruce held only, I believe, because I let out 120 feet of rode in 16 feet of depth. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with our new Rocna on chain in that, although our Bruce has held for many years almost everywhere.C'mon, your boat, your choice, and like everything in boating, there's NO "BEST", it's the CHOICES we make. Given MaineSail's studies and presentations, if you're happy with what you have, stay with it. If you can read, upgrade. Why should anchors be any different than this argument: my Loran -C works just fine, but I'm 25 miles off the coast and I still keep losing the signals...duh? Buy a GPS, or a sextant.

 

[Ross]

Stu, Inertia may be a factor BUT ................

With 16 feet of depth times 7 yields 112 feet, and did you measure from the bow roller or from the keel? Just barely over 7:1 scope. I say that a prudent person will go to 10:1 in a blow. Just because these new designs will hold on a 5:1 scope that only makes them better in a crowded anchorage.

 

[Tom Spohn]

Anchor Tests

I don't think you can evaluate the performance of an anchor without considering the bottom conditions and how much veering (Maine Sail's concern) you will encounter. A test done in Puget Sound (where I sail) in the mid 1990's showed quite a variation depending on the bottom. Other tests show variation based on rode length and composition (how much chain). Here are some tests to look over:http://cruisenews.net/db/pagetemplate.php?cat_id=17

 

[XYZ]

Anchor Facts

Bruce performed very well in most of our tests; Bruce clones did not. Did you know that stainless steel Bruce does not work?

 

[Ross]

Tom very interesting report.

It does little to show me that the anchors of long standing reputation should be abandoned for the newer designs, just that the newer designs have the potential for holding a boat with a smaller hook.

 

[Ross]

Did you happen to measure the differences

between the SS and the alloy steel to see why? One of the things that trouble me about anchor testing is the lack of multiple pulls for each specimen in the same conditions. In the test report I just read one anchor was attempted ten times without set. All of the others were reported on with fewer tries. In my early career I worked in R&D, we used to say that if we tried something and it worked we would try it a hundred more times to get it to work again but that if after the first ten tries it didn't work we would abandon the idea. In material testing we never would accept the result of one or two tests on a sample. We demanded repeatability.

 

[XYZ Anchor]

Ross, original Bruce was made of high tensile, heat-treated cast steel (B.S.3100-A6) that enables very thin and sharp, but strong left and right wings. 316 stainless steel is a much softer metal and therefore wings are made proportionally much ticker to prevent bending. Thick wings also significantly prevent bottom penetration.Drago