I just signed up as a Patreon supporter of Steve over at the SV Panope YouTube channel, something I should have done ages ago. Anyway, done now.
While I was doing that I was surprised to see that Steve only has 35 patrons. Definitely reflects poorly on us in the cruising community when you consider that he has 5400 subscribers to his channel and probably tens of thousands of yachties that watch at least occasionally.
Or, to put it another way, only one in 150 of us who regularly benefit from his hard work are contributing anything to it.
I guess he could be making big bucks from Google ad share revenue, but I’m guessing not, since to do that you have to have about a bazillion followers and views, like say SV Delos, and Steve’s just not cute enough for that to work.
Anyway, if you are one of the thousands of cruisers who learn from Steve, have a heart and support him at Patreon. It does not need to be a big amount if there are enough of us. I pledged $2/Month or $24/year—I wonder why I picked that number?
Always remember that free is most often worth exactly what you paid for it, and that goes quadruple for most of the stuff on YouTube.
If we are not willing to financially support the very few people like Steve and the folks over at Practical Sailor who actually know what the hell they are talking about, we only have ourselves to blame when we find ourselves awash in bullshit.
Support SV Panope Now
Disclosure
Nothing to disclose, other than this appeal was motivated by remembering vividly our time labouring for some 12 years at this site without a cent of compensation while paying all expenses out of our own pockets.
Thanks to all you members who changed that.
Thanks for the nudge!
Glad you joined me John😀. I may have been one of his first supporters on Patreon as soon as he put it up mainly as a thank you for all of the videos he had posted to date. To me there are certainly other very comprehensive and arguably more rigorous quantitative anchor tests (like PS etc). But between the prior Cruisers Forum thread “photos of anchors setting” by a underwater photographer (Noelex) and now Steve’s “videos of anchors setting”
— this visual evidence has advanced our knowledge of why certain anchors behave the way they do and really helps understand what is going on particularly for those of us unlucky enough to sail in mostly turbid waters.
So yes, support the work!!
Hi Michael,
Good on you.
Was not aware of his YouTube channel. Now a supporter and subscriber. Thanks
I made my recent anchor decision based on Steve’s tests and this site ( Sarca Excel). A challenge for Steve may be the Patreon model of an ongoing subscription. An anchor is a one time decision with lots of research before purchase but little thought afterward. Unlike this site and others with a broad range of topics with appeal over time Steve may be “one and done”. I looked at dozens of his videos before buying but only two post – both on the Excel. If this is the case I suggest signing on as Patreon for one payment and cancelling. Much like buying an e-book. You make the decision what a one time donation is worth for all the research you’ve enjoyed. We certainly need to increase his Patreon numbers and revenue. His work is unique and priceless. Thanks for the appeal John!
Hi Geoff,
That’s a good point, so I added a button linking to making a one time payment through PayPal.
I have been following Steve’s posts on CruisersForum.com
https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/videos-of-anchors-setting-155412.html from its beginning, and made a Paypal contribution to him thinking that I had learned as much from his videos and commentary as from a good book on anchoring. Earl Hinz’s anchoring book was about $30, so $30 it was. Since then he has done even more, and it may be time to now pay him for volume 2.
Bill
Done – thanks for the prompt. I bought a Mantus M1 for my best bower based on Steve’s work.
You make a good point. He should get some bikini-clad assistants, obviously. Anyway, I’m guessing you’ve made his day for him, as I, too, have just sent him some money.
Hi Karl,
I knew he was doing something wrong! 🙂
I just renewed my membership here at AAC. The information is worth far more than the cost of membership. I did not know about Steve and SV Panope until I read the anchor comparison article. Again, great information. My crusing is limited to Lake Ontario in my 24 foot Shark. That being said, I still find the information here frequently applicable. I too followed John’s lead and joined patreon to support Steve. $2.00 a month is a small price to pay for such a terrific resource.
Fair winds.
Colin
Hi Colin,
Thanks for the kind words. One of my best friends who crewed for me on many of our arctic trips started off with a Shark on Lake Ontario and had nothing but good to say about the boat. Our new boat, while probably a bit bigger to accommodate aging bodies will be in many ways the same sort of boat.
Hi John – I know you’re wanting to move on from this topic but the subject is massively important, particularly to those like me who don’t yet have the 1000+ sets to make them properly knowledgable yet love to anchor. I’ve always used a Rocna to good effect (so far but I’m getting concerned…) but I’m mindful of Keynes observation that ‘when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do Sir?’. So I’m gobbling up as much realtime experience from others as I can get.
I really appreciate what you’ve done in raising the issues and I certainly respect Steve’s work but in your articles and those by Colin, the need to set the anchor on a long scope is stressed repeatedly. Looking through the video on the Rocna, Steve never uses more than 3.5:1, explaining that he doesn’t have the money to buy a bigger boat that could handle a longer rode. On a 2nd hand Rocna, he noted that the stock was a bit bent which also might have affected the result.
I’m well prepared to reconsider previous choices if the evidence is compelling, but before I do that I’d be very interested in your comment on what appears to be a contradiction between best anchoring practice and Steve’s testing. Or have I just missed or misunderstood something?
Of course, if we all contributed to Steve he could buy a bigger boat! Whatever, I do believe he deserves support to continue his efforts independently, particularly if they may challenge long held beliefs.
Hi Iain,
I know changing from an anchor that has treated you well is hard to do, so good on you for considering doing that. All of my thoughts on the Rocna issue are here: https://www.morganscloud.com/2019/05/24/anchors-resetting-failures-with-rocna-and-some-thoughts-on-vulcan2/
Short version: The problem is not rode length dependant, rather it’s because debris unbalance the anchor in such a way that it just lies on it’s back and slides.
Bottom line, the evidence is too convincing, and the modality too dangerous, for me to even consider trusting a Rocna. You, of course, may come to a different conclusion after reading the above.
Hi lain, I really appreciate your open mindedness and support of my anchor stuff – thanks.
While my early testing did focus on 3.5:1 scope, in this past year, I have been testing heavily at 5:1 and 7:1 scopes. I even tested the 22 pound Rocna at 9:1 scope (with heavy chain) and while performance did improve, the anchor’s performance was still considerably less than other anchors (at shorter scopes) in the “sandy mud” seabed.
As far as that second hand 45 pound Rocna with the visible manufacturing defects, stay tuned – I will soon test a brand new 45 lb. Rocna. Most notable, is that the weld bead that connects the two halves of the fluke as been ground flat on the new anchor.
Lastly, boat size has never been a problem. However, I have lamented that I have not had enough engine thrust to properly test the maximum holding power of the larger anchors. This will be remedied as I will soon begin testing with a large “dead man” anchor and winch. The system should be good for up to 5,000 lbs. of pull and will therefore be able to test even larger anchors at long scopes.
Cheers,
Steve
Thanks, John. As we intend to anchor a lot this year in the remoter parts of UK and Ireland, I guess I’ll sleep sounder with an oversized Spade with the Rocna as a spare. Oh well, if I can’t take a joke I shouldn’t have bought a boat…. Many thanks for your tips and those of others; very much appreciated.
Hi Iain,
Good call. And you are so right, those without a sense of humour and fatalism about these kinds of things should not own boats.
Greetings, John, Phyllis and AAC members.
I became an AAC member today, and look forward to “catching up” on a lot of great reference material. Hopefully, I might also add a kernel of info here and there, as well.
But first, I must extend a heart felt thanks for supporting my anchor testing. I have already put the extra $$$ to good use as just today, I bought a NEW 45lb. Rocna for testing (my other 45lb Rocna was flawed and modified).
Perhaps even more important than the financial help, is knowing that you all are genuinely interested and offer positive reinforcement as well as constructive criticism. I am certainly aware of many flaws in my material and am constantly trying to improve it.
Please feel free to ask any questions about my tests.
Steve Goodwin
SV Panope
Hi Steve,
Welcome to AAC, and thanks for being a member.
One thing I’m interested in on your testing is why put money into Rocna, when we know from your testing and real world experience that the anchor has a dangerous dragging modality?
https://www.morganscloud.com/2019/05/24/anchors-resetting-failures-with-rocna-and-some-thoughts-on-vulcan2/
Or to put it another way, would it make sense to narrow your testing focus by dropping a bunch of anchors to concentrate only on those that have exhibited good all around performance with no dangerous modalities?
To me the drop list would include:
John,
My view is that currently sales, marketing and common reputation have not caught up with the problems that have been found with the drop list.
So it seems to me that continuing to test them and demonstrate even more times that they have these problems is valuable.
There will be people who make claims that the testing is no longer fair if these anchors are not being tested.
If I were adding to the drop list it would be to include anchors that need reinforcement to the rollbar to avoid it bending.
Also one set of tests that I thought was very valuable was the self launch, recovery and locked into the bow roller video.
I have also become a patreon of Steve (and should have done t a long time ago)
Hi John,
While it is temping to focus on the best performing anchors, I think it is valuable to keep testing them all. Here are some reasons:
-Dropping anchors means that we stop learning. If I had dropped the Rocna after my first (failed) reset tests (5+ years ago), then I would not have gone on to learn that the anchor also suffers (in some seabeds) from low holding power, has poor veering ability, and has some manufacturing variability that might significantly effect performance.
-Dropping anchors is not science. A significant number of people are very skeptical of my work, often claiming that I am biased, working for an anchor manufacturer, sloppy, or that the testing is simply not broad enough in scope.
My recourse is to diligently soldier on like a machine, testing every anchor as accurately and completely as possible.
-Except for the Manson S. the anchors on your list are extremely popular and will likely remain in use for decades. People need to be made aware of their anchor’s behavior so that they can plan accordingly.
Lastly, I really enjoy the anchor testing process. The time spent on the water, the exercise, and the excitement of making a new finding are what is really motivating all this.
Steve
Hi Steve (and Dave),
Fair enough, particularly since you enjoy the process. That said, I’m still a great believer that elimination is one of the best ways to get to good decisions, so I will always favour that approach.
I guess the difference is that I have always been driven by getting out there voyaging, and even now it’s all about being on a boat sailing or cruising, not maintaining it. Maintaining is a means to an end, only. Therefore I am always looking for ways to streamline the selection process and get it done so I can get back out there.
So the way I look at it is anything that is not totally required to get out there, like messing with proven defective or at least obsolete gear (like the anchors I list), or innovating at the bleeding edge as Dave likes to do, is just getting in the way of my primary goal. No right or wrong here, just three different ways of looking at the world and deriving meaning and enjoyment from it.
One other thing I would say, based on over 20 years (I wrote for the magazines before AAC) of doing this, is don’t worry about accusations of bias and all that crap. You will never overcome that simply because the people who scream bias are really just upset because you have logically shown that something they bought is defective or even just that there is now a better alternative and they are too immature to see past that to the huge service you have done them. Bottom line, it’s their problem, not yours, so just ignore them.
The other thing that helps me deal with that stuff is that research has shown that about 10% of men and 3% or women are predisposed to trolling behaviour and trying to tear the good work of others down. Nothing any of us can do will ever change that. It’s just the way those people are made. So, once again, it’s their problem, not yours.
Hi Steve,
Great to have you join here and thank you for all of the great work to date. One of the things that always strikes me with this type of work is all of the things you learn that were never expected and how you can always find more to test as you learn more. While I understand John’s point about not testing anchors that are known to perform poorly, from a purely scientific understanding, you often learn a lot by testing them so I appreciate you doing it. I am convinced that there is still significant room for improvement in design and your tests are a great body of information that could help in it.
I do really hope that you are able to test hard bottoms and grass as you have stated you hope to but I also know that is asking a lot of you as I gather that this doesn’t pay enough to be considered a job. If your testing ever takes you to New England, I will happily do my best to produce a list of places of interest for testing.
Eric
Perhaps an alternative for this is to try and recruit testers who can follow Steve’s methodology and process where bottoms not readily available to him can be found.
Marc,
No problem finding someone to follow (or improve upon) my methodology and process. The challenge will be finding people who are as tenacious. The time and effort and to do this is immense.
Hi Steve,
I am reminded about what we always used to say when offshore and things got tough “if it were easy, everybody would be doing it”. Not a chance in a million that anyone else, except maybe Drew, is going to bring the diligence and plain hard work you do to this.
I suppose that’s correct. Even with other keen sailors, saying you watch videos of a guy who methodically field-tests most known anchors is a bit of a niche interest.
Eric,
Your test location list would be most welcome. Thanks for that offer.
I do hope make a journey to the East coast but, as you assumed, this is not a money making enterprise. In addition to the time away from my “day job”, the trip will incur a fair amount of expense (road fuel, accomodations).
Speaking of money, I’ll share my current position so no one has to guess.
-My day job: Hourly employee at Cape George Marine Works. I was hired as their “systems” guy, but the reality is I do a bit of everything.
-YouTube payments for the advertising on the anchor videos run between $100 and $150 per month.
-Donations via Patreon have been running about $300 per month.
-Donations via Paypal have swung wildly between $100 and $1000 per month. Lets call it an average $300.
So far, all income as been consumed by direct anchor testing expenses (anchors, rodes, winch, cameras, storage drives, boat fuel, propellers etc, etc.)
Someday, I may be able to recoup some money by selling the anchor hoard and the new test boat (sould be delivered soon) that I am purchasing out of pocket.
I am operating under the assumption that I will never see any profit. I’ll consider any profit that might arise to be a gift.
Steve
Hi Steve,
Good on you for being so open. That said, I would like to see you actually make some money since I’m not one of those that think there is something morally wonderful in doing stuff for free for us yachties who represent some of the most privileged people in the world. So do think about ways to turn what you do into a real business—will require expanding what you test beyound anchors and will take a while. (Took as 12 years.)
Hi Steve,
Absolutely, I would be happy to put together a list. It wouldn’t be hard to make a spreadsheet with harbors, their access, bottom type, depth, crowding, etc. I am not quite sure how I would share a file with you but reach out if you think it would be helpful.
I do hope that you can be fairly compensated for the good work. Something like an east coast trip would certainly be expensive as you say but hopefully people could pitch in both monetarily and with other things like free lodging.
Eric