On Nov 3, 11:56 pm, "JimB" wrote:
I also note that Rocna has added an addendum to the article which plots
performance against different criteria to show the Rocna in a more
favourable light. Other high performance anchors could choose other criteria
to show their designs as superior - but they've chosen not to.

The real point is, it's difficult to differentiate between all these high
performance anchors, so it doesn't matter a stuff which you choose.

No Jim, the chart shows the complete averaged summary data of West
Marine and SAIL's 2006 testing on a totally fair size-for-size basis.
It is the most complete picture of this testing that can be shown
concisely, despite the squawks from Rocna's competitors and attempts
to muddy the waters.

As to differentiating factors, perhaps West Marine's own summary
comments could be of assistance. On the top three anchors with the
highest holding power:

Delta: "Variable results ranging from around 1,500lb. to 4,500lb.
Drags at limit."
Spade: "Somewhat mixed results with three OK pulls, and three maximum
pulls. Set immediately each time."
Rocna: "Superb, consistent performance. Held a minimum of 4,500lb and
engaged immediately."

These are in their entirety (short I know) and verbatim. Again,
concise and complete - this is no cherry picking or careful selection
of out-of-context quotes. Anyway, the point is, I don't think that
West finds it so "difficult to differentiate between all these high
performance anchors".

The remaining contenders below the Delta figured topped out at only
just over half that of the Rocna, with Manson's Rocna copy so badly
compromised that it even failed to beat the WASI Beugel, which is as
you correctly comment the original "roll-bar" anchor - from the early
80s! Why? Not because it didn't perform well (it did, a few times) -
but because it couldn't perform consistently.