Sailing Today magazine published an anchor test in 2003 in which the Spade did not perform well, contradicting all other tests. How do you explain this?
The testing procedure was very poor. They tested a range of anchors in a single poor holding seabed (they admit that they intended to test the anchors in three seabeds but ran short of time and the weather drew in – the test was originally scheduled in January for the December edition – this was simply no excuse!) Their test results clearly showed that the sea bed was inconsistent (the smaller Kobra outperformed the larger unit!) They did not seem to acknowledge this. They also claimed that the aluminium Spade and the Ocane failed to penetrate. When these anchors were returned to us, they showed clear evidence of effective penetration. The tests did not consider turning on tide or wind and were not scientific. A subsequent anchor test by Sailing Today failed to include Spade (predominantly Lewmar (Simpson-Lawrence) anchors (we were not invited to participate). The results clearly showed the CQR to be the best performer, yet they concluded that the Delta was the better anchor. The Delta
