George >>he has never tested any Max anchors and basically is applying his knowledge of other anchor types to conclude that what we recommend as the manufacturer is "BS."<< It is true that I have not tested the Max anchors. What I am applying is the laws of physics. What Andy is recommending is contrary to these laws. >>As far as my not sending him test results, that is untrue, I did provide him with results from Underwater Capabilities, Inc., of Gulf Breeze, FL, an independent testing facility. << This is not true. What I said was he did not send me any calculations to verify his claims. I have repeatedly state on this site that he sent me his own testing results and I have analysis the results of these test to draw my conclusions. Unfortunately the results do not bear out what he claims. And it was his video tape of the SM I watched. >>Anyone with any knowledge of anchors and anchoring techniques can easily pick apart any tests that may be done by others. << Unfortunately this all to often true. Because anchor test are rarely done rigorously. That is all the variables are not controlled. Basically, if a test any test is to be considered valid in the scientific world it must be repeatable by others. To my knowledge the only anchor test I would consider valid are those done by Robert Taylor for the US Navy. Anchor test can be made in a manner to show any results that the client wants. This is why test made of anchor A always show anchor A to be superior to other anchors. Independent Laboratories don't make money by disappointing clients. This is why physics plays such an important role. Mathematics is harder to fool. >>As far as anecdotal experiences, we believe that those who have our anchors who have had hurricane experiences and otherwise will endorse what we have to say as to how they work as they have in the past to us.<< This same statement could be and often is made by any anchor manufacturer. >>We do not want our new Max owners to have to go through unpleasant learning experiences, << On this we both agree. >>so we recommend to them what we know works, and they have no problems when they follow our instructions. << Even though I believe Anecdotal evidence is not very strong. I have heard anecdotal evidence that this is not always so. >>If I followed Don Dodds "instructions" I would never get a SM anchor to set. << Andy may not be able to set the SM but I am willing to bet I can following my instructions. >>with a SM anchor set in the middle arm position or with a rigid anchor, all one needs to do is to drop the anchor with a minimum of rode, start backing down very slowly, then check the rode when the angle of the rode with the horizontal (water) looks to be about 45 degrees, then if it drags, let out the rode more and check, etc. until it sets. Simple.<< Most anchors will set most of the time using this procedure. However it is not the best procedure. Also using this procedure it is possible to get to 10 to 1 before it sets, and didn't we start this thread with an individual who set the arm in the mid position and couldn't get the anchor to set? His response was that the arm was in the wrong position. Not so simple anymore. Now we must retrieve the anchor and fiddle with the arm position as well as the scope. Now his Proof that his method works was that it set when he changed the arm configuration. Question for the list. How many times have anyone had an anchor fail to set and had it set on a subsequent try? I have had this happen many times with CQRs, Danforths and Bruce anchors for example. I didn't alter these anchors in anyway why did they set the second time? I submit that it is entirely possible that the SM setting had little to do with the arm change. On the other hand if it did, and 6 inches of sand prevented the setting we are back to the issue of the anchor's over sensitivity to bottom conditions. Final let me state emphatically that I THINK THAT THE MAX LINE OF ANCHORS ARE GOOD ANCHORS. Pardon my shouting George. My point is that they are little different from other anchors in that they hold in SOME materials BETTER than other anchors and in OTHER materials NOT as well. They obey the laws of physics and forces, and can be set quite satisfactorily in a manner other than prescribed by the manufacturer. Which is all shown by his own data. The load on a max anchor is applied by the rode and the reaction of the soil to this load on the flukes is what drives the anchor into the bottom. Until Andy or anybody can show me hard evidence which would cause these anchors to behave differently I am choose to rely on physics. Trial and error is a hard way to learn. Just because you toss a coin once and it comes up heads doesn't mean it will come up heads every time. Don Dodds

> Trial and error is a hard way to learn. Just because you toss a coin once > and it comes up heads doesn't mean it will come up heads every time. > > Don Dodds > Yeah, but would you need mathematical, engineering evedince not to bet against a coin that comes up heads every time for the last 3 years? If so you will be buying alot of rounds. :<) Some things just work even if we don't know why. ie: a bumblebee Morley M/V Tortuga ( 35' Ta Chiao ) Cape Coral, Florida