New Generation Anchor [Archive] - Pearson Ariel Association Forums

ebb

02-10-2006, 08:16 AM

G'mornin, Kurt,
Brakes do seem to me too as important as the sails, let's say. Not possible to be casual about the hook, like some seem to be. Experience rulls on this and one's relationship with the gods. As I clear a spot here with that morning cup of Pero a postum note surfaced with a list of NEVER SETs (maybe from the Max anchor site?):

Did not set (dig in) in mud:
bruce, cqr, barnacle, danforth, fortress, digger, spade.
And again I'm not sure that the rollbar spades would either. We need uptodate impartial extensive tests again that includes these.
I don't think that Practical Sailor's 'farm pond' method (as one wag put it) can cut the mustard with cruisers any more. I personally can't see that pulling anchors horizontally with trucks is useful either as a test.
And the real world testing with huge anchors and tug boats, while better, for sure, don't seem to address accurately anchors and anchoring for small to midsize sailboats. One cruser diving down to take a look at his set describes other boats 'anchored' with their cqrs laying on their sides at the end of their chain!

Got my anchor ordered from Wayne at Azure Marine, who was rather vague about the price for a 25# Manson Supreme, galv. The Supreme is relatively new for Manson, and I think he deals mostly larger hooks.
$165. 1-964-062-4515.
which seemed pretty reasonable for an import. He based his price on a per pound cost of all the Manson anchors he flogs. So I said, if it's within $20 don't call me. It could be more. Have to add UPS, which from south Florida to Sonoma California he estimated would be around $45.

OK, for the dippers here, I am not recommending this product in any way. I have no experience with this anchor or any past dealings with the Azure Marine outfit.
I'm skeptical about the "dual shank" design in terms of the stress points where shackle would bear on the anchor. I talked with the Navico (Plastimo)
importer about the photos on the Manson site ("Dual Shank Anchoring - How It Works") purporting to show a Supreme being pulled out from coral (looks like a piece of concrete to me) with the shackle slid down in the "tripping" position. I said, it looked to me that the point of the spade would still be pulled upward because the pull is still on the lever arm of the shank. Like you guys, sometimes, he don know what I was talking about. :cool:

[Manson is clear about the material used for the shank: Bisplate 80 (ASTM A514) a highly alloyed low carbon plate that doesn't bend under load, easily.
"Good weldability and Excellent notch toughness" Notch toughness? Maybe that answers some concern about the shackle points on the Supreme shank.
But not clear about the blade. One also has to assume the aussies know how to hot dip galvanize, a nearly lost art in the USA. So, choosing which rollbar spade, I went with the company with a great reputation for anchors.]

c_amos

02-10-2006, 09:59 AM

Here is a link to the "Manson Supreme" website. (http://manson-marine.co.nz/SitePages/SupManson.htm)

http://manson-marine.co.nz/Supreme/Supreme.jpg

ebb

02-10-2006, 12:42 PM

Thanks Craig!
(sorry, somehow the text doubled)

ebb

02-10-2006, 01:00 PM

Thanks Craig!
You'll see what I mean in the last photo of the series on the Supreme 'how it works' page. The chain is being held up at what look like a fairly correct angle to an imaginary deck - but look at the spade, it is still pointed up. Wonder if it could have pulled backout like that if it had gotten wedged in a cranny?

That shackle groove needs to turn the corner and continue down to the blade. That of course would make the anchor dangerous to use. The only retrieval solution for rock or coral is a conventional bouyed line fastened somewhere to the back of the blade, or maybe the back of the shank. We'll see.

If we are looking at a hotdip galvanized anchor above, THAT is a spectacular coating. Assume it is not the 316 stainless that supposedly is available - but Wayne did not have prices on s.s. versions and they are not mentioned in the site text.

Another point to look at is the rollbar. It is free standing assume welded(?) to the blade. Can you crack a weld with a bang on the rollbar? You betcha! Welds are notorious for defects too. If seawater ever gets inside, it will rust the tube - unless they galvanized the inside (which can be done) befor they welded. Unlikely.
This is a good reason to go stainless, but 316 is not high-strength low carbon alloy plate, and would result in a bendier product. There is a relief hole drilled into the bar for galvanizing - will that let seawater in? Why not, it gets in everywhere anyway. :(

Maybe second generation Supremes will have the rollbar attached to a slightly different shank design that would allow the pipe to be attached also to the shank at the center of its arch. That would stablize the welds of the rollbar on the blade. Could design the rollbar with holes so that when the completed anchor is galvanized the zinc will coat the inside of the pipe. We will see.

In the mean time have they got your money?
Have they got your boat, more to the point.

eric (deceased)

02-10-2006, 11:22 PM

but how long will its stay so shiney???and sorry folks.....but there is alot to a name...theres something about the name"manson" that makes me think twice about anchors....welllllllll,jus' stab me in the back!!!!! everything here is just so helter skelter!!!!!

craigsmith

02-12-2006, 02:04 AM

The Rocna, an upstart version of the Manson with a plain shank.
:eek:

Get your facts straight please! The Rocna design first registered in New Zealand: August 2004.

In fact we talked to Manson briefly about having them produce the Rocna under license, but we got nowhere. Six months later we saw the first photos of the Supreme.

It is worth taking a look at Manson's range of product to see if you can find a single original design.

Let's give it a try.

'Ronca, Ronca, Ronca' (tapping heels together).
*Poof*, here i am. :p

Spelling the name properly might help next time if you want a faster response, but I won't hold that against you, it is a strange one :rolleyes:

There is very little feedback on the net. Much is based on cruisers saying how much they love their Bruce or their Bull or their CQR. Since 338 is not sailing yet, thought I'd ask. Get an update.
As far as any of the new anchors are concerned, you will not see much feedback at all for a while. Even once there is a good number of people out there using them, it will take time for experience to build up, and opinions to form.

As far as particular people telling you how great their plow, claw, Danforth, or whatever is, it is wise to be cautious. Very few people have sufficient experience with all types to make valuable conclusions. Furthermore, saying that one has had 20 years of excellent experiences with X anchor may prove that anchor X is a good one, but this is also a little like saying one has had 20 years of excellent experiences with candles, and why bother with that electric lighting thingy.

(Very interesting that Manson also makes a copy of the CQR and it is featured on their web site. They have a little movie of their best seller setting in the sand without a bit of fuss. Wonder why?
Watch our video on our website to see the same anchor skidding along the sand and not setting at all.

Went and checked out the Manson website, Ebb. Looks pretty good, very similar to the Rocna. Hate it when a company won't put a price on their product! How much does a 25# Manson cost? I bet it's close to the Rocna's price, a bit more than the 17# Bulwagga I intend to get later this year...
No, it is quite a bit cheaper.

You get what you pay for.

Wish that the marinesuperstores would have some "try before you buy" anchors for our own testing. That way we could do our own testing, in our usual ancoring grounds, and see how the things work in real life...
Well, we will offer a money-back guarantee on request. If you returned the anchor claiming you were unimpressed, we would charge you for re-galvanizing, which is only ~$1/Kg, but otherwise refund you in full. We don't offer it by default to prevent people "borrowing" anchors.

I'm skeptical about the "dual shank" design in terms of the stress points where shackle would bear on the anchor. I talked with the Navico (Plastimo) importer about the photos on the Manson site ("Dual Shank Anchoring - How It Works") purporting to show a Supreme being pulled out from coral (looks like a piece of concrete to me) with the shackle slid down in the "tripping" position. I said, it looked to me that the point of the spade would still be pulled upward because the pull is still on the lever arm of the shank.
The full length slotted shank is an attempt at stealing some of AnchorRight's market share down here in New Zealand and Australia. AnchorRight produce the SARCA (http://www.anchorright.com/), basically a heavily modified plow, the primary selling point of which is the slot.

Although popular with small boats, the SARCA has done terribly in reviews, testers generally having problems with the slot. As you suggest, Manson have not properly copied it, and their version would not work even as well as that.

We have a bit more info about that on our website under "features & details" (bottom of 2nd page).

c_amos

02-12-2006, 10:22 AM

Thanks Craig,

Pretty good, picking it up even with my challenged spelling..... :)

I think I have figured out the angle on the Rocna. If it ever breaks loose, a sales rep pops up in diving gear and re-sets it before you know you are dragging.... :D

ebb

02-12-2006, 10:36 AM

Craig,
[Craig (Peter?) Smith is the inventor of the Rocna - in New Zealand.]

Is this not to say that the Buegel was also lifted from the Rocna design? Or did both your designs appear similtaneously - as has been said about pivotal human inventions?

"Hey! THAT is a great design. Let's improve on it! Let's make it better. How 'bout a slot down the shank to slide the shackle, etc. Let's make it out of TITANIUM!!!"
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And the profit motive.

As a boat owner, tho, my concern is for my boat and my life. OK?

Now, blatant copying, using cheaper materials and fabrication is definitely criminal, imco. So what has to be assumed is that there has been no patent infringement on the Rocna with the Supreme's "dual shank". You'd be taking them to court, Right? So, I am corrected on the time line, but is it important?

NOW, what I'm interested in is what the anchor is made from - and why.
Is the method of manufacture the best? Is the welding perfect and the welding rod correct for the plate? Do the various metal pieces match in alloy as well as the added metal from the rod in the weldings. Galvanising has to be perfect as well, how long will it last.

'You get what you pay for' wasn't proved to me from the literature or the visuals on the net. Some real world testing has to be done with the rollbar spoon delta (inverted plow) anchors pitted against each other with some of the old ones tossed in for control. Probably could leave out flat plate anchors like the Bulwagga and concentrate on comparing all of the plow or spoon, or claw anchors, in the marketplace. If the makers, together, put up the funds for independant SIDE BY SIDE testing and published the results, I know I, for one, would be more likely to accept that data. Since nothing substantive or non-ambiguous exists yet from any maker, I depend on intuition, looks and price, if I want one. Real results from real tests would get the "winner", if there was one, into the catalog stores and chandleries. If a maker declined to be part of the test, I'd know, we'd know, and who would trust their anchor?

A 25# (in that weight class) Rocna was priced to me over the phone at over $300. At Azure Marine, when Wayne said, 'about $165,' for a Supreme of equal weight with the tricky shank, I was hooked. The 24# Buegel in galvanized is available for $260 plus shipping from Inter-Yacht in North Carolina. They also sell another invention called the PowerBall which connects the anchor to the chain that allows it to freely rotate. Impossible to kink the chain, I guess. Something to consider.

When somebody can prove that they want to sell me the best all round anchor for my boat, bar none, that's what I want on the bow.
That may have to include a whole new anchoring philosophy to go with the new design.

Like coming up short on the tether while setting because the anchor buries itself so quickly. Tandom anchoring when preparing for a blow - thats new to me. Including the little things like using dacron instead of nylon for the rode. Hmmmmm. :confused:

I am persuaded that the handsome design concept is sound. I'm not persuaded that I have the right anchor. YET.
It is easy to see that the Beugel is, metaphorically, a Porche version of the more practical pickup truck Rocna. Agree? :rolleyes:

Since some heat has been generated on this subject, I would suggest that interested 'new generation anchor' buyers go to all the different anchor web sites and cruising boards and make an evaluation not only about this new style anchor - and the hype - but also about what is NOT said about EACH product. What is NOT said is often much more important than the b.s. Your life depends on it. It is not about who crossed the road first but how well the egg is protected. :D

CapnK

02-12-2006, 11:15 AM

No, it is quite a bit cheaper.

You get what you pay for.

Well, we will offer a money-back guarantee on request. If you returned the anchor claiming you were unimpressed, we would charge you for re-galvanizing, which is only ~$1/Kg, but otherwise refund you in full. We don't offer it by default to prevent people "borrowing" anchors.

'aloo, Craig -

The Manson price Ebb posted was a good deal cheaper than the Rocna or Bulwagga in a size I feel appropriate for my boat. Your comment probably does have merit.

RE: money back guarantee and "trial-ing" anchors - A few questions/thoughts: Where are your anchors shipped from stateside? We the consumers would be paying the galvy charge + shipping x 2 in order to test a Rocna, assuming that the decision was made not to keep it, so it would be nice to have an idea ahead of time what such charges may be. This info may be on your website, I forget.

What I had in mind for end-user testing was more going to say West, giving them a credit card, taking their "trial" anchor out and playing with it for a day or two, then returning it after having used it, armed now with actual experience with an anchor to make a decision about buying.

If the anchor wasn't returned, the CC gets charged for the amount of purchase. This would be a good way for you to get your product into the hands of consumers so that they could evaluate it in real life. It would probably result in more sales for your company. I am unaware of what it would take to swing a deal like this with West or other boating stores, but if it could be done it sure seems like a good idea to promote the product.

If your supply chain would be too stretched to put multiple anchors in every West store, perhaps you could set up a drop-shipping arrangement with them, where each store would have perhaps 2 or 3 Trial Rocnas of different sizes (for use with different sized vessels). Once an evaluation was done by the consumer using an appropriately sized Rocna, then they would order through West upon returning the trial anchor (the store making a commision on the sale), and your company would ship the new anchor directly to the purchaser from your distribution point.

I write the following not at all intending to tweak you, but only to give you a viewpoint from a consumer half a world away who only knows you and your product as electrons whizzing around the internet. I hope you will take it simply for what it is - my own opinion and input. :)

Noteco Bulwagga anchors have a 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed policy, no galvy charge, and the consumer is given an entire year in which to decide whether or not to keep the anchor. I consider this to be a *strong* statement that the product will perform in excess of my expectations. Knowing that I had a year to use and evaluate the anchor showed me that the manufacturer had full confidence in the product and my eventual satisfaction with it. This is important to me when buying something unseen and untested, and at that time, relatively unused and so with very few real-life experiences of others to draw upon when making a decision.

It so happened that I was sold on the anchor after the first few times I used it; it *far* outperformed the Danforth that I had at the time, to the point that I never even considered returning the Bulwagga. I would not hesitate to buy for trial any product which has such a guarantee in place. The Bulwagga guarantee is simple, direct, applied across the board without specific request, and is in full view on their website. It reads as follows:

"Full refund of purchase price for any reason within one year of purchase date by
original individual purchaser. Excludes shipping and handling costs."

Based on my own common sense, and the information you provide via your website and comments on boards such as this, I'd think that your anchor works exceedingly well and is indeed an improvement over "old generation" solutions. I felt the same way about the Bulwagga back then, but what *really* induced me to buy before trying their anchor was that it was a no-lose proposition for me - other than shipping charges, there was no risk or cost to me to experiment with the anchor to my satisfaction before deciding to keep it. That is one hell of a marketing tool. :)

This should be said: I do not nor have I ever received any compensation from Noteco Bulwagga (regrettably :D). I am just an extremely satisfied customer - their product worked exceedingly well for me, and the guarantee was reassuring enough to me that I had no qualms about sending them some boat bux before ever actually even seeing the product in person, much less being able to handle or try it.

Craig - Thanks! I appreciate your taking the time to talk to us about your product and others.

craigsmith

02-12-2006, 05:36 PM

Is this not to say that the Buegel was also lifted from the Rocna design? Or did both your designs appear similtaneously - as has been said about pivotal human inventions?

No, the Buegel was around for quite a while before we came to the party. The roll-bar concept for the Rocna was indeed lifted from it (and the SARCA mentioned above was using it too, so no-one can claim it as original).

But the similarities end there. The extra functional components (of the Rocna) are identical on the Supreme:

- Concave blade
- Heavier plated toe than heel
- Skids in order to assist setting
- Roll-bar attached to fluke and skids in identical fashions
- An identical inside line of the shank
etc

Now, blatant copying, using cheaper materials and fabrication is definitely criminal, imco. So what has to be assumed is that there has been no patent infringement on the Rocna with the Supreme's "dual shank". You'd be taking them to court, Right? So, I am corrected on the time line, but is it important?

We would not necessarily be taking them to court. Consider the cost. And the outcome? They simply modify the anchor further, to the point it really doesn't infringe. We're not sure we'd really benefit from the investment.

However, options for the US and Europe are on the table.

NOW, what I'm interested in is what the anchor is made from - and why. Is the method of manufacture the best? Is the welding perfect and the welding rod correct for the plate? Do the various metal pieces match in alloy as well as the added metal from the rod in the weldings. Galvanising has to be perfect as well, how long will it last.

This, and the rest of your comments, are quite fair enough. This is where we could get technical and try to back up my comment "you get what you pay for". But, as you yourself have demonstrated, it doesn't seem to matter. The dollar price quoted on the phone is all that really matters to the majority of consumers...

As an aside, Manson use the same galvanizers as us in New Zealand, so you can assume the quality is identical! (Doesn't apply to Rocnas produced in Canada).

'You get what you pay for' wasn't proved to me from the literature or the visuals on the net. Some real world testing has to be done with the rollbar spoon delta (inverted plow) anchors pitted against each other with some of the old ones tossed in for control. Probably could leave out flat plate anchors like the Bulwagga and concentrate on comparing all of the plow or spoon, or claw anchors, in the marketplace. If the makers, together, put up the funds for independant SIDE BY SIDE testing and published the results, I know I, for one, would be more likely to accept that data. Since nothing substantive or non-ambiguous exists yet from any maker, I depend on intuition, looks and price, if I want one. Real results from real tests would get the "winner", if there was one, into the catalog stores and chandleries. If a maker declined to be part of the test, I'd know, we'd know, and who would trust their anchor?

Well, every test we've ever seen done we have had reason to question the methodology. I think tests of anchors can at best only ever serve as a guide.

As far as our comment, it wasn't intended wrt pure performance. The Supreme should, and does in our experience, perform identically to the Rocna (they're practically the same after all). I was talking about quality of construction.

When somebody can prove that they want to sell me the best all round anchor for my boat, bar none, that's what I want on the bow.
That may have to include a whole new anchoring philosophy to go with the new design.

Like coming up short on the tether while setting because the anchor buries itself so quickly. Tandom anchoring when preparing for a blow - thats new to me. Including the little things like using dacron instead of nylon for the rode. Hmmmmm. :confused:

But now I'm confused... that sounds like our material and concepts, yet you went with a Supreme?

It is easy to see that the Beugel is, metaphorically, a Porche version of the more practical pickup truck Rocna. Agree? :rolleyes:

No. The Buegel is a flat plate with a hoop and straight bar welded to it. It is exceedingly primitive. The differences listed above make the Rocna, and therefore the Supreme, a much more sophisticated design, in all respects.

epiphany

Thanks for all your comments Kurt. You have some good ideas. I'm not sure how practical the idea of "trial" anchors are, but it's certainly something I can put on the table with the other guys here.

Anchors are currently shipped to the States from Vancouver. Not ideal and we are looking to change that soon.

Re Bulwagga, we simply haven't implemented such an "official" policy, but it may indeed be time to do so.

:cool:

ebb

02-14-2006, 01:54 PM

Craig Smith,
Also, thank you for taking the time to talk with us in this little corner of the net. Personally I'm a believer in the natural and ethical (BS?) supremecy of small entrepenuers in the marketplace, and will naturally in my small way do business with them, as much as possible. Rather deal with sensitive individuals first, then the tight-lipped but big teeth corporate dinosaurs. Where's Manson in this discussion?

Praktical Sailor's slick new color issue has arrived with a reprise of their horizontal winch pulling test on anchors in the 25# range - this time in a 'soft mud' Florida marina slated for condo redevelopment. Part 1 of a two part 'short scope' comparison has many of the usual suspects on the block but includes some stranger ones like the Box, the Hans C, and the Sascot.

In soft mud on short scope (I guess you can't create a catenary with this test method) the Bruce, the Lewmar Claw and Delta Fast Set, and the Spade bested this group of 18 danforths and plows by a little, or a lot. The Lewmar Claw (a knockoff Bruce) came out on top.

We'll see what anchors are included in Part two.

The P.S. tests are directed at the consumer. Usually the consumer with bucks and a big boat. Best-Bang-for-Your-Buck is the rating theme like Consumer Reports' 'Best Buy'. But it is a mistake to think that soft mud deep setters (deep digging or burying is the key, imco) are multibottom anchors. A cruising Ariel cannot carry 5 or 6 hooks in the bow. These tests imco are of almost no help to a small cruising sloop that can carry only 1 or 2 all purpose anchors.

The makers of alternative and new generation anchors should do as suggested above and organize a real world 3rd party test of their own. Have it published no holds barred in a trusted cruiser mag. Or on the net. The P.S. test is OK as far as it goes (the marina ?) OK for retirees aslip in Florida.

Maybe the Rockna is destined to influence all anchors hereafter. Elegant, strong, good looking, and versatile. Anchors are like stone age spearheads.
When the fluted Clovis point finally appeared after thousands of lifetimes of flaking tools for survival it changed everything suddenly. Those who went with Clovis became modern man and those who didn't ended up on the rocks of Time.

The right anchor is essential to survival. The wrong one gets you a Darwin Award.

ebb

02-15-2006, 04:53 PM

Anybody interested in looping this discussion might go to google

Beugel anchor - SSCA Discussion Board

where you will meet Craig Smith again, he gets around.
Maybe Peter Smith is his father or mother?
But also enjoy this similar kind of search for the mythical all purpose anchor - along with opinions and prejudices and diatribes from the salts of the sea.

Generally have no problem with the maker of a new product promoting an anchor on a board (but has to introduce himself as such), he takes flack for his hype from the old generation anchor lovers and maybe another competitors and wags as well! So the feedback is important.

But EVERYBODY makes unsubstantiated and hearsay statements about other unrepresented anchors. It's a chore to come up with a concensus wading thru these 4 SSCA packed pages. And most of these guys have much larger boats and ground tackle and egos then me.

Will no doubt have sumthing to say again when the Supreme I ordered arrives.
In the meantime, the newly published Practical Sailor's (Feb 2006) mud test seems even more peculiar and useless to me than it did yesterday. It's an OK test if you are planning to cruise soft mud marinas slated for redevelopment.

"Numquam ponenda est pluritas sine necessitate."
Known as Occam's Anchor. the Latin translates:
"Multiples should never be used if not necessary." :cool:

IE, continue searching for that one simple and perfect anchor!

Curious that BOWER is not used by anyone for an anchor carried on the BOW.
Nor is the term SHEET anchor used for the main or largest anchor aboard. :confused:

ebb

02-20-2006, 01:06 PM

Since I am afterall only a consumer here, and not a researcher - except by necessity - let me say this:
When we order an important piece of safety equipment from a dealer and/or manufacturer, technical information is of prime importance.
You know, and the whole thing has to be laid out.
Nobody should have to make any assumptions about technical excellence or indeed the technical honesty of an anchor.

The manufacturer's reputation is pure 'hearsay.' His product, as has been shown many times over from a number of sources, 'mostly BS.' "You get what you pay for." is untrustworthy as well.
OK, how then does one purchase anything as necessary as an anchor? Nearly everybody recognizes the importance of a wellmade sturdy anchor.
We've all been burned, all been hyped, all been told what we want to hear.

I know I'm repeating myself here. And I may be a fool. But the 25# Rockna cost more than twice as much as the anchor that does the same as the Rockna. Why?

craigsmith

02-20-2006, 04:58 PM

Maybe the Rockna is destined to influence all anchors hereafter. Elegant, strong, good looking, and versatile. Anchors are like stone age spearheads.
When the fluted Clovis point finally appeared after thousands of lifetimes of flaking tools for survival it changed everything suddenly. Those who went with Clovis became modern man and those who didn't ended up on the rocks of Time.

That is a nice sentiment ebb, thank you.

Do you feel the same about the Supreme you ordered?

When we order an important piece of safety equipment from a dealer and/or manufacturer, technical information is of prime importance.
You know, and the whole thing has to be laid out.
Nobody should have to make any assumptions about technical excellence or indeed the technical honesty of an anchor.

But you most certainly do have to. What technical information do you consider of prime importance? Are independent appraisals of that information available? Regarding construction, are you an expert in steel fabrication techniques? Welding? Steel grades? Even if you know your stuff, most consumers most certainly do not.

There are no standards with anchors, which we think is a tragedy since an anchor is really a safety device (as you say). Cheap imports, Chinese copies of Bruce, CQR, and Danforth, flood the market with impunity.

"You get what you pay for." is untrustworthy as well.

"You get what you pay for" is not a subjective statement. It is a measure of relativity. What we mean is:

We do not know of any anchor, from any company in any country, that is a "rip-off"; in other words, the price of every anchor is more or less fair. The price represents what has been invested in its construction. You may decide that money has been spent where you don't want it, but that is your choice.

But the 25# Rockna cost more than twice as much as the anchor that does the same as the Rockna. Why?.

An excellent question. What do you think the answer is?

ebb

02-21-2006, 08:06 AM

OK, Dr Rocna,
I'm going to chew on this one last time.

The Manson Supreme "has been reviewed by Lloyds Register of Shipping and is intended to receive SHHP status." Manson says it's the only production anchor in the world that has this (yet to occur) honor.
I'm not sure what kind of warranty this implys and have not a clew what SHHP means.* (Super Hot Holding Power) The photo accompaning this statement shows a s.s. Supreme. If it is made from 316 it wouldn't be as tough and unbendy as Bisplate 80.

I would assume Rocna is waiting for their 'official recognition' from this Buzzword assurance company?
I sure hope that Rocna is included in Praktical Sailor's second part soup test. It's something, anyway.

Rocna makes one mention of the steel plate material their anchor shanks are made from: QT100. (ASTM A514S)
It is considered a low alloy steel. It forms well, flame cuts well, welds great with the proper electrodes, and has high strength NOTCH toughness. (assume that's the hole where the shackle goes) It's used for grader blades, backhoe buckets, pallet forks, safes, perforated seive screens and the bottoms of sport/fishing boats that need 'abrasion resistence' from rocks. Strong stuff.

That it is "a quenched and tempered high tensile steel extremely resistant to the twisting and bending forces present when the anchor is under load." is no doubt true. But this language connected to the next paragraph:
"Your Rocna is assembled by a team of trained specialists. Skilled workers precision-weld every component together using techniques that make the joints the strongest parts of the anchor. Welds and edges are hand-detailed until the finish is such that you'll be proud to display one on your boat."
Well, I dun know, a red flag just went up! Whotzis a pricey kitchen range or a suit? ....I guess this is the real world!

My point is, this is a shill outside a strip joint trying to get me to come inside by pumping up the charms of the ladies. Actually, what really bothers me is too many words that are just too full of merchandising - I'm on the "construction" page and I want DETAILS not HYPE. No way to evaluate the product - so I have to evaluate the source. But the source is messing with my head. Since reality is so limited, I have to base my evaluation on faith. What a way to get burned. Yes, I have.

Like someone on another board mentions about your site's video, the Rocna is not exactly subjected to the same drag test as the other anchors. We have to ASSUME the anchor has dug in and cannot be dragged along under the surface of the sand like a plow with the SUV. Your video is coy about real world anchoring in water by showing us computer enhancements that show us nothing. I have no sound with my monitor - so I'm not commenting on the narrator - who looks like a very nice but rather serious person.

You don't show your anchor setting and digging-in in any kind of bottom.

The Manson Supreme evidently is made of very similar alloy, whether the slot design makes it weaker than a solid shank is conjecture - unless you have tests to prove otherwise. Yes?
I would like to see independant tests that these shanks are resistant to bending under load. What load? Have tests been done? Like to see one lodged in coral or rock. Maybe the shank will hold up to "bending forces" but the unknown and uncelebrated alloys of the other parts of the anchor might not. I must be too stupid to care.

I wonder about the stand-alone pipe bow being strong enough and also if it'll get hung up on something. It is a kind of hook in its own right.
You do say. tho, that the pipe is galvanized inside. I wonder if the pipe and the rest of the product is in the same alloy range as the shank.

Would also like assurance that smaller anchors (your site testimonials are nearly all boats over 40' that use heavy Rocna's) that lighter Rocnas will set and dig in with smaller and lighter boats at the other end.

Will your 25# Rocna on the end of certain length of rode and chain, let's say in 20 or 30 feet of water, connected to a 5400 pound 26 foot full keel boat SET and DIG as the advertising suggests?

My life depends on it. :rolleyes:

It's a treat to talk with anybody about a product. Specially a new anchor AND the mysterious and inexact science of anchoring. I'm glad you have a great team there and make the best anchor possible. Reflected in the price we must pay. Anchors are such an important piece of equipment that, for me, they are all already in the public domain. The evolution of the bow, you have pointed out, proves the idea is accepted by the puiblic.

*Manson assumes their reader knows what being reviewed by Lloyds means.
Do they test this anchor? What do they test? What is SHHP? It's not obvious and enters Hypeville because it is obscure. Guess I'm dumb again! Rocna raises a good point that if the anchor shackle inadvertently slides toward the blade it could pull the anchor out from set. The 'dual' shank is problematic BUT NO PROOF has been published by its critic(s).

Breakawave

02-23-2006, 05:18 AM

Hi all
My name is Rex francis from anchorright Australia.Web site www.anchorright.com.au Email rex@anchorright.com.au
I invented the SARACA boat anchor back in 1993, when we did our patent search there was nothing like it on record, after many long years of r+d we releast this anchor onto the market just before the turn of the twenty first centuary, and yes we have got it right. It wasn't long before we had learnt that there was another anchor launched about the same time called a bugle but after close examination it was clear to us that it's over all concept was well outside the scope of our invention. After launching the SARCA with well documented evidence all types of water born craft took to this new design like ducks on water, it looked different had a money back garantee and was not more of the same, but more importantly it worked. It wasn't long before a Mr z from New Zealand contacted me after seeing a demonstration at a Queensland boat show, this is where it gets interesting after reading some of the forums in relation to two new anchor designs from NZ. Mr z could sell ice to the eskimos and as it turned out I fell for his tactics ,to cut a long story short we exported the SARCA into NZ in 2003 again as our oposition can confirm we took the market by storm and then started manufacturing in NZ in 2004 it wasn't long before Mr z started his handywork by plotting to take over ownership of our patents and in fact all rights to our invention, talk about an experience in NZ next thing you know 2005 the crockna turned up follwed closley by the other NZ oposition theires sported not only the hoop like the crockna but a trip release that mimicked the SACA design. Needless to say we have now taken back all rights from NZ and manufacture here in Australia, A slightly differnt version of the state of affares as to the reasent reading on this forum. There have been so many untruths babled by our opposition to push there own barrow with absolutely no regards for fair comment or general buisness ethic's. The reason we have not picked this up before is because Iam not a forums buff and have far better things to do than bag our opposition but enough is enough. this forum was bought to my attention by my marketing manager here in Australia and pointed out that there are a lot of readers asking inteligant questions and only recieving a smoke screen, there Ive had my say and you probably wont here from me again unless you email rex@anchorright.com.au Iwill reply via email. As far as anchor tests go, sure you have heard enought lets see proof of what we are crowing about and why we are of such an interest to our oppositionn, check out our web site and pay attention to the incredible Tsuami report and watch our uncut DVD, this will take a while to streem load but once done will play smoothly. Iam sure many of the questions that you have not been given direct ansers for will be fully understood without ducking and diving. Any of our statments can be verified. If you would like to trial the SARCA simply email me you will pay for the anchor and frieght, you have three months for trial and if your not satified with it's perfomance a full money back garauntee will see you refunded and then you can enter your own report.
and incidentley you wont be charged for regalvanizing, however if you loss the anchor there is no refund.
One gentleman asked a question, why isn't the roll bar fixed to the rear of the shank, woudn't this give it more srenght? our resaerch over a period of six to seven years said yes it does, Sarca is fixed to the rear of the shank, why arn't the others it seems our patents have been pushed to the limits take he next step?

Regards. Rex Francis.

Bill

02-23-2006, 04:12 PM

The Feb '06 Sailing mag has an article titled The ABC's of Anchoring beginning on page 38. In this thread, it might be considered a "look back," since it does not mention any of the newer patented anchors being discussed here.

". . . most sailors rely on two basic types: the plow anchor, which has flukes shaped like a plow and relies on its weight for the initial set, and lighter anchors with flat flukes that rely on pivoting design and the pull of the boat to set them . . . Offshore cruisers . . . generally swear by the Lewmar CQR and the Bruce, both proven plow anchors that will hold tight during unseemly weather. Inshore sailors . . . will swear by their Danforth or Fortress . . . but (they) have one drawback, especially for offshore sailors; they do not easily self-tend when raised . . . CQR, Bruce and . . . the Delta all lend themselves to being raised with a windlass and secured on a bow roller with minimal attention.

". . . there is one anchor that many people . . . would never leave port without, and it's the old-fashioned kedge anchor or Fisherman, also known as the Yachtsman or Herreshoff. . . . once down it grabs where most other anchors skip and as such is often used as a storm anchor."

There’s more to the article, especially on setting and retrieving anchors. Check it out.

ebb

02-24-2006, 09:38 AM

Bill,
That well may be. But those old anchors' days they are numbered. Beach and pond SUV tests are proving it. :) And there's no way that my genuine 35# Scots CQR or the USNavy Danforth has a place on 338's bow.

I think the search for an allpurpose anchor is exciting and necessary. We is exploring! I also, first thing, would trust the fishermen and sailors down there in some of most extreme ocean conditions (and bottoms!) to come up with a super hook.

We have two inventors dropping their anchors on the Board here, that's unusual, tho one of them has been on EVERY other board google has come up with on the subject of anchors and anchoring. Even if they are bickering - I think it's great. Maybe Hylas (Spade) will pay us a visit too.

This is a learning experience, it's forced me to search and read and try to fry the hype, or what seems like tripe. I really don't have the time or experience to research these new anchors as a group.

Rex Francis breaking ground here is very very interesting. He is obviously pretty real. I have briefly gone to the SARCA site. We find out he is a fisherman who just HAD IT with anchors that didn't work and invented one that did. The anchor is totally unique, hardly BORROWS from any past anchor or perhaps, more importantly, from any of the new boys on the block. Could be they borrowed from him - without asking! He has every right to be proud of its success.

You will notice that mostly fishermen use it on their funny little boats. Nary a sailor, I didn't see one in my rapid scan. The anchor is designed for small craft, however, It cuts and slips into the bottom rather than requiring motoring or backing the boat up to set it. (my interpretation.) And that imco is what the situation is with the A/C.

I want an anchor that sets and dives without the slightest provacation. SARCA promises.

I don't want to drop a CQR and have it lay on its side or have a Claw grab a chunk of bottom and tell me its set when it ain't.

I wonder if KURT will get anchor lights blinking on his new site. (maybe he has.)

Admin

02-25-2006, 01:50 PM

eric (deceased)

02-25-2006, 04:06 PM

a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.you can have the best anchor system deployed but it aint worth the skin on your teeth if everything else isnt up to par,,,,,,,that is the shackles,splicing, even the bolts that hold the bit or cleat to the deck.I will never forget being on this 48 foot abeking rasmussen yawl in mexico------30 billion feet of chain on a 50 ton anchor----- I was told to let up on this lever that payed out the chain----- then a red flash----- the end of the chain had a red cloth on it----the bitter end was not secured----luckily there was a mexican lobster diver in a small open boat ---for 20 american dollars he retrieved about 2000 dollars worth of chain and anchor-----

ebb

02-25-2006, 07:02 PM

Good story, eric.
It may be worthy of a thread...
I wonder what Ariel owners find to anchor the bitter ends of chain in their boats. I've heard it's good to have a sturdy eye bolt and a bunch of turns of light nylon rope between that and the last link - and a knife near by in case you have to cut it in a hurry.

But what is the bolt is attached to.....?

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

I see it another way, Bill, on Rex.
I have seen Craig Rocna Smith everywhere on the net. He is very cool and smooth in his method. (You know, if it were Simpson Lawrence flogging an anchor, say they had a new one, it would be a problem even objectionable, especially on a one design web site.) Craig pops up like a talking mushroom.
But in my recent forays into anchorpedia Rex wasn't there.
In other words, Craig has a little light on his computer that blinks whenever Rocna anchors are mentioned on a site anywhere in the world. He's right there to set the record straight.
He was flippant about the SARCA one time I remember, tossing it off as a lesser anchor, not worth anybody's consideration. Like it had a flimsy hoop and that it was a PLOW type anchor, which it is not. That was my impression. And it sounds like somebody had to come into Rex's shop and tell Rex his nemisis was at it again, so he felt he had to put his twocents in. I don't think Rex read all our verbiage. Just stating his position. I don't see it as merchandising.

But I do see Craig's selective (ignoring questions) and FORMAL answering of concerns and unsubstantiated claims as merchandising. Not bad, not good - merely mco.

Rex, on the otherhand, either doesn't care or hasn't been to prep school like Craig, and isn't trying to impress an audience. I have a feeling there is much going on down in NZ and Australia about these anchors and Rex, I assume, felt like he was forced into making the above statement. And he did it himself - I think his company has been around long enough to have gotten some collegiate to set things straight, and it would have been organized different. In the timeline, SARCA was conceived and patented a decade befor Craig's dad invented the ROCNA.

Craig would have to say that SARCA bears no resemblance to ROCNA. But somebody might have taken affront in the upstart naming his anchor with an acronym that may seem to be poking fun at a better anchor. Justice is served in Manson's flagrant copy (IF that did indeed really happen that way) of the Rocna with the added sliding shackle invention of Rex's. :rolleyes:

Wager that the SARCA will get and hold in more bottoms than the ROCNA.
INCLUDING HARD SAND.
Yawl got two videos to see on The SARCA and the ROCNA sites.
One of them LOOKS FIXED to me. ;)

c_amos

02-28-2006, 09:11 AM

FWIW,

There is an offer for a 'Group order' proposed on the Sailing Renegades forum.

If anyone is interested in ordering a 'Rocna' (there Craig, I even spelled it right).

Here is the link (up to %20 off).

Link to discussion on Sailing Renegades (http://renegade-cruisers.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2702)

The first couple pages are talking about a new boat someone is buying, the anchor discussion is near the end.

ebb

02-28-2006, 09:59 AM

OK, talking to self again:

One of the UNanswered concerns the "gentleman" had was with the design of the Rocna and Supreme hoop. Sarca points out in this thread that the Sarca hoop is protected from entanglement with line and chain AND also reinforced by this feature. You will notice the SARCA has a piece connecting the shank to the hoop.

ROCNA's scenario of a boat drifting over the (Supreme or Sarca) 'dual' sliding shackle shank and pulling the shackle inadvertantly down to the blade end and pulling the anchor out of set
is also a conceivable possibility with the Rocna (and Beugel). IF the line or chain gets down into the unprotected space between the shank and the hoop the Rocna could also be pulled out! Worst-case possibilities are ENDLESS and Murphy's law always applies.

If you have a design flaw it isn't going to be mentioned on the product literature pages. If you were a new owner of a Rocna or Supreme you could weld on an anti-fouling feature of your own with rod or smaller diameter pipe in the form of a 'V' from the shank to the hoop. It would lock in the free-standing hoop strengthwise. Not an insignificant cost. You'd be doing what Sarca has already done.

Sarca is in no way a plow design like the CQR. This is an irresponsible description of the anchor by a competitor. The Sarca's blade is thinner (by examining the pictures - I've never seen a live one) but certainly appears to be designed specifically for cutting into a seabed (bent downward point) - and the Sarca video shows this to be happening pretty well. There also seems to be a minimum of editing in the video.

Here is what I think may be an important observation. See if you agree, ok?
The Sarca is concave on the bottom with a sharpened point in front that has a definite down turn. This, to me, looks like that when you pull on the shank the anchor HAS TO DIVE IN. The Sarca has to dive because its blade can only be pulled DOWN into the seabed. Could be said: the anchor SLICES into the bottom.

OK, let's take the spoon shaped version where the bottom of the blade has a belly. I could argue that as this Rocna anchor is pulled into the seabed it will round out much like taking a SCOOP out of a melon with a tablespoon - the shape of the spoon follows itself into the solid

and follows itself back out again. Kabisch?

Now, if you turned that spoon over and tried to cut out a piece of melon that way, I'd say it can't be done. Not easily. Suppose the Rocna (I don't know this, ofcourse, none of us do) gets pulled in as shown in the video BUT if pulled further by the SUV or the boat FOLLOWS ITSELF BACK OUT AGAIN? There is NO video showing what happens after set. Hmmmmm? You know, because the bottom of the anchor is spoon-shaped. (More or less, we are comparing two similar but radically different products) Maybe it doesn't happen in normal anchoring situations... but in a storm?
Guys and Gals, consider this.......ok?

Craig Smith could argue that this doesn't happen in practice. Show us.
The melon-spoon metaphore may not be wholey accurate because the 'radius' of the blade may be too large for scooping to actually occur. Sarca shows their reverse curve digging in deeper when tugged (which would happen in a real world situation). Can't argue with that concept, right? Intermittant tugging on the Rocna might not be pulling it DOWN into the bottom but tending to be pulling it UP because of its shape.

It would be most revealing to see 'new generation anchors' in a side by side comparison, using the Hylas Spade for datum. Sarca also needs to completely reveal their anchor parts alloys to the public. As does Rocna and Manson. Nothing, nothing should be taken for granted these days. And imco especially with a new not yet established anchor. Sarca's been around since '93. With 'knock-offs' you can assume less attention is payed to methods and materials.

If I had heros in manufacturing and marketing of marine products. Garhauer is at the TOP of the list. With more familiarity with these 'new generation' (Rocna takes the credit for this phrase) anchors - I may lean toward the small shop inventive energy of the Sarca as a counterpart to the Garhauer family in the States. It's a matter of rightness and righteousness. Right? Oh, AND the right price.

Rocna literature quote: "Practical Sailor and Cruising World [US buzzword mags - ebb] show that New Generation type anchors consistently out perform more traditional designs. Picks, claws, and plows are a thing of the past, and we are proud to present the most refined and effective - yet affordable - new generation design - Rocna"

Yess, yes, again, this may be true - Rocna is a slick looking anchor and this statement is unabashed merchandising. But this statement does NOT say. and can NOT say (as of 2/2006), that P.S. and C.W. have actually tested any Ronca alone or against or with these OTHER new generation anchors. Right? And whether it is AFFORDABLE depends or your pocketbook - and the value of your life. :D

[Craig amos, suh,
If you want to add some more to the information fray - and witness some more exquisite uninformed commentary - type in "yatiwa anchor" on google where you may find the www.ybw.com anchor FORUM where Hylas holds fort (the Spayed and Oceane Anchor inv.)and, wuduknow, so does craig rocna smith....
We'll git to da truit, someday, folks!!! HEARSAY IS OFTEN THE WORST KIND OF INFORMATION YOU CAN GET. or.... WHOSE MOUTH IS TALKING?]
>sotto voce< psssst, craig, you still there? :)
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
THANKS REX FOR YOUR MESSAGE BELOW HERE. Won't respond until I have some time. Also leaving your name on the Forum index might entice some folks in to read it befor it gets buried! Ole breakwind ebb

Breakawave

03-01-2006, 06:51 AM

Hi EBB
the material used in SARCA anchors may surprise you as they are all mild steel construction. I come back to our research and development, I started designing this anchor back in 1991 and didn't get any exciting results for two years, one has to be mindfull of the passion you get for a product that you truly invent, so as to determine my passion and step back I visited many charter operators and common fisherman with my invention.

Yes I gave them proto types to try out, designing an anchor may not be rocket sience but when you learn your patent is going to cost you around $100,000.00 you have to justisfy this cost. The feed back from these guys no different to your self was absolutely instrumental and encouraging, feed back helped me in developing the SARCA to what it is today.

Why mild steel? Many of our charter operators anchor in rocky out crops or reef as we call it here, this is down south, and large commercial boats up north anchor in ocean floors thats laden with large bolders of limestone, the rate of anchors being destroyed once locked under a bolder was suprising. They would regulary bring up just the stock and leave the crown behind, most of these anchors were manufctured in bisaloy or high carbonet steel, they would simply snap them of,that feed back we discussed with the Marine board here in Victoria Australia when we approached them over our anchors being tested for survey, they certainly had a lot more knowledge and reports of anchors snapping, not from retreiving but side pull when the anchor was wedged and made the comment that had they been mild steel, { bend it may} but in the worse cenario could be straightend and redeployed.

I should mention that when we approached the marine athorities we were soon to learn that the SARCA would be the first Australian anchor design to receive a high holding power accreditation providing we fill the criterea needed for this accreditation.

Based on the feed back we decided to experiment with the mild steel, we increased the thickness of the matrial to obtain similar strength to that of bisaloy and then fed them back to the Marine testing Authorities for approval for survey. All of our tests proved to well exceed there test requirements.

I should also mention another fact as to why high tensile steels are used,a thinner stock or shank creates less resistance for the fluke area to pull the shank down for maximum depth.

We found the design and perfomance of the SARCA fluke over rides the thicker stock or shank and has much less bearing on its performance.

Incidently we found that severley bent anchors still perfomed extremely well, but these tests were only on the Sarca.{How are anchors tested?}

A load proof test for strength, the fluke area is bridled approx 100 mil from the tip of the fluke a measurement is taken from the tip of the fluke and the end of the shank, then the stock or shank is hydraulically pulled upward to try and separate the two, they do have to withstand farley severe loads one of the SARCA's had over fives ton of upward pressure, they measure again under load for distorsion and when released must settle back to its origional measurments.

The anchor is then dropped from various heights and inspected for any sort of deformation.They deploy the anchors in shallow sandy and mud bottoms, it is placed in its worst possible position to determine the distance it takes to set.

High holding power has to withstand higher proof loads and has to have a resistance to drag times it's mass weight in sand and mud, super high holding power anchors go through the same procedure at around three times more the load requirments of high holding power, you can find these test loads in USL Code hand book table four on testing anchors and ropes, but this tell,s you Jack sh---t as to how your anchor will perform in anything other than sand or mud.

Unfortunately there is no way anyone can make the statement that an anchor regardless of design will dig in, in all ocean floor terain. We don't flog the holding power features of SARCA.

As we know if your anchor can dig in any well designed cqr or sand type anchor has proved it's worth, but struggle in any thing other than what it was designed for, what we are simply saying about the SARCA is the consistancey factor{ no more or less than a good women would expect from her husband} holding power is almost impossible to measure in gravel weed clay, rubble excetra.

Sarca's performance in these types of sustrate is what took the sales away from the boy's in NZ and Aussie, I might add that our larger anchors go through quite severe heat treatment, a stress relieving process. You will notice the laminated plates in our competitors product, this is not new we use this method on all anchors from nine kg up and it can clearly be seen bridging the apex under the sarca and forming the toe.

We give a five year garauntee against ware and tear faulty manufacturing, damaged, or bent providing the right size anchor is deployed for the boat in use. Before anyone makes a statment about the Sarca take a look at the web site, customers in real life situations, The statment made by our opposition as to we only cater for small boats is a myth, We are currently anchoring vessels up to 280 ton and a two hundred kilo SARCA anchor will be slotted into our range shortly.

To all reading this thread we make no guarantee you will always stop where you drop, what we promise you is a performance second to none that you will come to respect or your money back.Before I close of we have been at this new anchor development now for some 15 years and have had first hand experience trying and testing and sharing the testing for unbiased opinions of the SARCA in many forms and configarations, { New generation anchors A'' ]

Ebb I could have done with your observation on our opps design it would have saved me a lot of time, you are spot on with your theories. Example of design. {Scoop, sugar spoon} try turning a full 360 degress in sand, this design originated in the bruce, more recently in the spade and then new generation all designed to work better and do, but in no other than there testing ground substance shown. Fortunatley we are now having the Sarca approved as SHHP Anchor, simply for the sake of how some customers evaluate the product, again its something thats not new, I kid you not there are quite a few anchors on large vessels that have had this accreditation for a number of years. Check it out.

As far as retrieval, our automic reset trip release is tried and proven, if it hamperd the perfomance of the anchor in anyway it would not get the USL Code approval, it's not ment to be the be all and end all, but certainly gives you the best chance of retrieving your anchor.

Regards Rex.

CapnK

03-06-2006, 03:56 AM

Rex -

Thanks much for the reply! It is good for those of us at the "bouncy end of the rode" to hear from manufacturers. I'm glad we've been given the opportunity to hear about and from SARCA, as I was unaware of your design prior to it being brought up here. I will be giving them some serious consideration, of the "New Gens" it seems that the design and testing seems to be more like I would have done than any other. Perhaps sometime in the near future I'll be slinging one up front next to my Bulwagga. :)

Thanks also to Mister Senor Ebb for the thread topic, this has been enlightening and informative. :)

ebb

03-08-2006, 03:07 PM

Just had snailed a color brochure and price lists for anchors and anchor channel rollers Sarca calls 'bowsprits.'

Anchor Right Canada, 9267 Shaughnessy St, Vancouver, BC, V6P 6R4. Phone 604-322-4008.

Using their charts I would choose either their 28.6lb #4 galv- $383.26 (s.s. $2,483.14) OR their 32.6lb #5 galv - $436,12 (s.s. $2,545.01). There must be a mistake on those s.s. prices. The envelope came with a dvd that screwed up half way thru but seemed to be a copy of the video on the home site.

The prices for the s.s. roller bowsprits are $410.97 and $601.07. Windline must have way better prices than these!

There is also a small exchange rate difference in our favor.
AND the UPS and any other not mentioned charges to add on.

That makes the SARCA more than three times the price of a comparable Manson Supreme. Manson called me up to say sorry they had my anchor on Back Order. I might have called them back to cancel but after this I'm going to let it ride for awhile.

There's more to say about this issue. Which I'll save for later.
Thanks to Rex for his last forthright post.
One important difference to emphasize is that the Sarca is made from ALL mild steel, including the shank. Mild steel is low carbon and not highly alloyed and rusts less BUT, more important, if it does get bent you can hammer it back to shape again. THAT would be useful. The hardened shanks of the Rocna and Supreme MAY be more likely to break rather than bend as intimated. And if they bend would be a bear to straighten. So, if you bend the Sarca, can you beat it back into a useful condition - on your boat - with a simple vise and a single jack?

+ + + +

The other thing is that there are 4 or 5 or 6 or more technical grades of mild steel. It's somewhat inappropriate to call the material you make an expensive technical anchor out of: "mild steel." Now we plebs are NOT supposed to be interested in esotreric metalurgy, and the pros don't want to reveal their secrets, but there must be a way to describe manufacturing expertise in layman's terms without patronizing. I heard a word used in criticising officials as: (there should be) 'transparancy' (when talking to concerned people.)
I'd like to see the words used to describe any high-end product as transparant, revealing, and covering up Nothing. No sugar added. :D

Bill

04-08-2006, 02:37 PM

Page 10 of the April, 2006, Practical Sailor mag begins their test (in mud) of the following anchors:

Anchor Right Sarca
Bulwagga
Danforth Deep Set II
Davis Talon XT
Fortess FX-23
HydroBubble
Kingston Plow
Rocan 15
Spade A80
Super Max Pivoting
Super Max Rigid
XYZ

PS recommeds the Bulwagga, Davis Talon XT and the XYZ, which also gets a "best choice" star.

Yes, Ebb has issues with PS testing, but this is a comparative test without manufacturer hype. Grass and coral bottom testing should be done next :D

ebb

04-08-2006, 06:41 PM

Great Bill! ;)
'Course SARCA is an acronym for Sand and Rock Combination Anchor.
At this point I'm convinced it's a pretty technical hook not really the best choice for anchoring in abandoned marina mud soup. AMMS.
Maybe others have the feeling, tho, that the newer anchors overall present a choice of lighter anchors more suited for a small cruiser.

ebb

04-12-2006, 01:41 PM

Here are a few observations off the top:
Looks like P.S. photographed most of the hooks they used in their test for the article. It's amazing how the smooth silvery computer enhancements in the catalogs washed right off.

Rex's SARCA came away very well indeed and should lead to a change in the name to
SARAMCA. (sand and rock and mud combo anchor) Maybe somebody knows what percentage of mud anchoring there is in american waters. It makes this anchor imco look like real choice bower for the Ariel. Three anchors for the price of one (dividing its cost by 3) makes its expense a little easier to bear! Yes? It doesn't depend on weight for it to work. It looks, at the moment, like an ideal and versatile small cruiser hook.

A letter writer in the same issue quotes L. Francis Herreshoff (paraphase):
'The human race took millennia to develop a plow design that could be pulled easily through the earth, and some damned fool made an anchor of it.'
Referring to the CQR, which has faired rather badly in other testing. P.S. included a knockoff Kingston Plow in this group. It also dragged. But it is not clear if it ended up on its side when buried in the mud or stayed upright as we are to assume the HydroBubble does.

Danforth style anchors aside, nearly all of the rest fall into two groups. Ones with 'spoon' shaped blades, and the others with 'plow' shapes. This is a misnomer. Rocna literature also misnames their rival SARCA as a plow. But, excuse me, plow is the Kingston, the Davis Talon and the HydroBubble.
The mildly concave blade of the SARCA with its down pointing entry doesn't make it a plow. It's designed to dig in and down when pulled, while the heavy CQR (for example) is meant to part the earth and make a furrow. And this might be happening under steady pull at shorter angles with other plow shaped blades in mud.

In mud the spoons did not perform as well, especially in the 3:1 scope set and hold comparisons. Talking into my hat, I think the SuperMax, Rocna may have lifted off their set and had a ball of mud in their blade like we hear the Bruce has trouble with. What do you think?
The Hydro is a lightweight plow that keeps its blade at the correct attitude. Wonder how this anchor would perform in deeper water where its weight would be more neutral. IE there is something to be said for a heavy weight anchor you can be sure has a better chance digging in.

The all stainless XYZ. I would also call (like SARCA) a technical anchor. Its superb performance in mud means to me that it dives when pulled. I assume that the SARCA behaves similarly. It's not clear that XYZ will do that in or on other bottoms.

What are your conclusions? I will shy away from the distinct plow shapes AND most spoon shaped blades as I get closer to getting the ground gear together for 338.

Bill

04-12-2006, 02:21 PM

It might be good to hear about anchors from someone who's sailed in the South Pacific. My brother (now deceased), took a plow along with his Danforth when he sailed to Australia in 1976. The plow, he found, was best for anchoring in coral. At least, that's what I remember him saying.

Mac

04-13-2006, 12:49 AM

EBB - I've been watching this thread with interest and you have forced me to post. This is not meant as me 'having a go' at you but more about putting some corrected comments into the thread.

Reading this thread it is quite apparant you have absolutly no idea about Sarcas except for what Anchor Right has told you. I do believe you trashed the Rocna bloke as a marketer of his own product so he could not be taken seriously. Do you see where I'm going with this, I suspect you are far from silly and you do :)

I have actually spent quite a bit of time playing with Sarcas, Rocnas, Spades, Supreme and many more. It's my job to spec anchoring and mooring systems which I both enjoy and take seriously as lives could depend on what I say. I don't believe 'marketing speak', do my own testing, always ask everyone with a boat what they use and how they find it, ask the manufactures so many questions they are sick of me and always make my customers give me feedback. My comments and conclusions are based on a combination of these.

A few corrections to some of your posts;
You are correct in saying a Sarca is concaved BUT only if you turn it upside down :eek: They are a convexed plow type as you will see when you site one in person and as you mentioned in a earlier post.

Sarcas are OK in clean firm bottoms. In soft mud they have many issues as many anchors do.

The PB report tests (they were not done by PS) done recently were as useful as a chocolate fire screen (just found that saying and do quite like it :D ). Anyone making a decision based on them would be regarded as very brave or very gullible. Even the 'best choice' anchor has a web page saying this

Compearing the Sarca Roll bar to the Rocna or Supremes is like compearing a 3 door hatch to a SUV. Again when you see these anchors you will notice the very big differances. The Sarcas rollbar is very important to it's structural integrity but on the other 2 it is not. Rex has obviously not had a close look at those nasty Kiwi anchors :D either. I think this is confirmed when Rex said the R & S (rocna and supreme, I'm getting lazy) anchors have laminated flukes, they don't. The S does have a small plate on it's tip and thats it.

It is good to see Rex on here explaining his product even if there does appear to be more than one of him judging by the posts.

Anyone passionate about their product will feel a tad defensive to negitive comments (be they right or wrong). They will also make the most of what they can to make their product look better. From what I have seen said on this site and know for 'fact', I would say Rocna has been more honest than Sarca. One small example - Sarca say their anchor has NZ Maritime Authority approval, this is complete rubbish as the MSA do not approve things like this. What Sarca actually has is a OK from a privatly owned company (not a well respected one either) who does some marine work.

Sarca says they have sold over 1,000,000 anchors and I'm just going to pop into my dingy and row to the moon for a picnic with G W Bush.

Sarca also say they have taken the NZ market apart...simply wrong. They have a big presence, but far from dominate, in the small fizz boat market but it is very unusual to see one on a boat above 30ft.

NZ's biggest anchor maker has had to hire more staff to fill orders coming from Australia and keep up with NZ supply as well. Makes one wonder where the million anchors are if they are not in AUS or NZ.

The Sarca 'sliding release' thing was on a NZ made anchor many years before Sarcas appeared. It has also been used on others before as well. It is far from new.

A Sarca comment 'We don't flog the holding power features of SARCA'. Do you wonder why when it is a very important part of an anchor performance?

If this all sounds like a bit of a Sarca bash, it sort of is to a small degree, for 2 reasons. 1, Having played with many many anchors over the years I find myself unable to recommend a Sarca on anything but day fizz boats due to there physical size (very big) and low holding. 2, SARCA are masters of marketing (or someone there is) very similar to the way GW sold the war to the US people. Based ruffly on but not entirely truthful. I personally think this is a mongrel of a thing to do when lives are at stake.

Some of your 'special' comments I liked.

HEARSAY IS OFTEN THE WORST KIND OF INFORMATION YOU CAN GET.
And your comments are ????

Wager that the SARCA will get and hold in more bottoms than the ROCNA.
INCLUDING HARD SAND.
I'll put a tray of cold beers on that. But be aware I don't make bets I might lose :)

What are your conclusions? I will shy away from the distinct plow shapes AND most spoon shaped blades as I get closer to getting the ground gear together for 338.
Could this be read as all product deserve to be called rubbish except for the one I chose because I know best??

Rocnas - Take me up on your wager and you will very quickly see what the differances are. Sure Rocna Craig is everywhere but look what he has done to promote his product with a advertising budget of next to 0 (guessing) so most would regard this as damn clever so don't knock him for that. Sure the Rocna is not 100% perfect but what out there is?. Is it an improvement to CQR's, Deltas and the other older anchor desings? I would personally argue.. Yes and by quite a bit. Is the Rocna very strongly built? Oh yes. Most importantly.. would I and my kids sleep on a boat anchored with a Rocna? From my experiance I would have to say a very confortable Yes to that as well. Do I know others who would? Yes quite a few.

Supremes - being so new we have only had limited playing and feed back so far. Results look OK to date bar one unhappy punter who could not get it to set. This does appear to be a quirky one so we can't take to much from it. It's still a tad early to tell for sure but I think she'll stand up OK. We look forward to your experiance with one. That was a serious comment by the way so please let us know.

Spades - no question there. I'd sleep very happy on those as well.

CQR - Delta. I'd sleep OK once I got them to set properly ;)

In summery, please don't go off about subjects like this without sound first hand knowledge. Just think of the 1st time boater who may read the forum and get put on a bum track, it could prove very dangerous and no-one wants that.

Disclaimer (claimer or whatever it is) - I am not related to, being paid by, shagging the daughters/sisters of or getting any personal advantage by posting this from Rocna, Supreme, Spade, Lewmar or anyone else in any way. That is not to say I wouldn't past my bank details to any if they would like to make a donation :D or reject the ph number of at least one sister if offered :D
I do spec and sell anchoring and mooring gear including ALL of the anchors mentioned above. I do know and have talked to Rocna Craig, Supreme Steve, Spade Alain and Sarca Rex.

eric (deceased)

04-13-2006, 01:45 AM

is a strong as its weakest link.everything about the anchorage system should be checked----as I said before ----the bolts securing the cleat to the deck can and will fail if put under enuff stress.so much for that---how about dealing with clearing what ever anchor you use of the holding ground retained on its flukes once on the deck----and then-- if the line -chain -or what have you- has been deployed{sorry --"deployed" is a skydiving term} for any amount of time ---it will have marine growth on it---usually once on deck---at least my experience has been----especially in a crowded anchorage---once the boat goes broadside ya' jus' aint got much time to get under way----by sail or power----and now ya' got a deck cluttered withs sails---jibs-- other stufff-and here comes a muddy slimed anchor and its associated rhode.what would jesus do????that reminds me----the cockpit scuppers are just about at sea level----which means your feet are at sea level-----your average everyday runna'th'mill ariel goes---about well--would you agree---about as fast as you can walk????does that mean----we---I --- walked on the--------- :eek:

ebb

04-13-2006, 01:22 PM

I'll stand behind what I've said and I'll also stand corrected. This is all discovery. Process.
I'm not an authority, haven't repped myself as such, and I'm doing this to share my interest with others on this specific site.

I'd detect that you Mac are a kiwi and just naturally have a leaning toward others of your religion...er region.

Couple small things: The hoop is a rollover bar on all anchors that have them. Whether Sarca has to have em for structural reasons is not important because the rollbar is part of the design.
Sarca imco is a plow only because we haven't come up with a better word. It's humped. CQR is a plow and looks like a plow.
Rocna is a spoon for the same reason. There isn't a better word, yet. Rocna blade is a flat V-bent with the back of the blade bent up at a shallow angle. It's a good enough 'spade' or spoon or holder of stuff for me. The Manson Supreme blade looks rolled to me like it's a section of pipe, it has no dish evident and no flaps in the back. Have the feeling that when mud gets in this one it'll slip right off.

Certifications: Sarca has three: Marine Safety Victoria = High Holding Power.
"first time ever". A Lloyds Register Melbourne certificate. And a Class SGS M&I certificate.
Manson Supreme has a Lloyds Register of Shipping - Super High Holding Power certificate "first and only boat anchor to have this."
I couldn't find any certificate thingys on the Rocna website. One can't help wondering why?

Final observation: Of the two Kiwi anchors, Rocna has by far the most elaborate, well groomed, testimonied website. It is impressive, and is meant to be so, I think. They want to impress you with how sophisticated and high tech their anchors are, their only product. On page 12, the last page, of the testimonial section there is a couple letters from Graham Alderwick who singlehands a Nova 28 finkeel sloop with a (35#?) Rocna 15. Persuasive!
Watched the video again and noticed, I'm certain, in the line up for the pull test, a Sarca. But it did not later appear. Too bad.
Manson Supreme has a short, to the point profile with no testimonials but does feature the SHHP certificate: Super High Holding, now that's impressive. ;) {Actually, it is. But what does it mean? Am I impressed by the certificate?]

A visit back thru the Sarca site, this time, is a distinct disappointment. Sarca definitely presents itself as a small outfit (we make our anchors out back), it also makes a couple other products related to the Sarca anchor. There is essentially one view only of the anchor (I was looking for how deep the unplow shape was), and another on the sand. There are no views of the anchor being deployed or retrieved.
Rather strange given the other products are to be used with the anchor. All the testimonials I found this time are by powerboats. This time no sailboats, no cruisers. Not a very good presentation.
If all I had to go by was the internet, Rocna would win by a nautical mile.

Testimonials are often the most dramatic sellers of a product. All sellers know this. So you still have to have some dramatic skepticism to balance these Opinions as well. :D

Mac

04-13-2006, 02:31 PM

The Kiwi V's Roo thing does seem to have some baring on things but mostly coming from the Aussie side or The West Island as we call it. They have some sort of complex about us but it's all in good sprit. I do belive Anchor Right had some internal issues with their NZ people which would not have helped. Surprisingly the NZ and Aussie marine markets are very very differant especially seeing we are only a few hours apart. 40hours and 18 minutes by a fizz boat a week or two back, Sydney to Auckland harbour bridges, not a bad effort.

Generally we boat quite differantly. We tend to do a lot more 'coastal' type work due the the shape of the country and having plenty of places to go. In lots of Austraila there is long gaps between boltholes so they tend to do lots of inshore type boating.

Don't be fool by the Sarca site, they are a well oiled operation but small by world scale, the nature of most manufacturering down this way. They do make nice bow rollers even if they are a tad pricey. Mind you Aussies do want more pay then China so it is a bit understandable. The Sarca is not a 'bad' anchor just it has limitations which have to be kept in mind. It does set well but after it's set things could be better.

Re Certs; If you look closely all of the Sarca certificates are for the same single anchor. Don't want to be rude but The Marine Board of Victoria?? a small state outfit, hardly significant. M&I a private company with a tad of a dubious history. Lloyds watched the same test and chucked in a Cert as well. Hardly anything definitive and a bit I find a tad annoying. This can be quite misleading if you don't know about Certs and the like.

On SHHP the actual loads required are surprisingly small and would be achievable by most. It is more a complete 'quality control' process to make sure construction is done right and other things like that, not purely loads. A damn good tag to have anyway and does give some more assurance of construction and performance.

Why does Rocna (Spade, XYZ, Sarca (yet) and many others) not have Lloyds? Purely the cost from what I gather, it's bloody huge. I did hear the Supreme spent around $30-40,000 odd getting it. Obviously most would struggle there. I get the impression the respective manufacturers would prefer thier products performance in real life to do the talking. I do like the Testimonial war they have going on. As you said they are more valuable than most other sales angles.

Having a very close association with anchors I can assure you these guys won't be retiring with a Rolls in the gargage :D

I've seen the raw Rocna video and I think they are 'being nice' to Sarca, shall we say :) .That video showed that they did pull each anchor exactly the same (be it good or bad) so the results are based on a even playing field. It's that old chestnut to pull test or not, how to test and so on. It will always be a tricky one. Would have been nice to have a Supreme in there as well but they weren't out then.

It's all quite an interesting subject (is that a sad thing to say? :eek: ) really and one of those that will be debated until the end of time, I suspect.

And of course all of this discussion has not got into the way you can dramatically affect your anchors performance by the rode behind it. Another story :)

Sail safe

eric (deceased)

04-14-2006, 12:12 AM

I sailed my triton starcrest 2 to hawaii and back from california in 1990.even after reading in the cruising guides that la haina in maui had poor holding ground I dropped the cqr in 35 feet of water.the ground was nuttin' but hard coral---I could visibly see the only action holding the boat in place was the inter-weaving of the chain amongst the points of coral on the bottom.the anchor itself was visibly exposed---not dug in at all----just dead weight--not performing its function of "digging in"then in keehee lagoon----great "deep muck" excellent holding ground----I set two anchors off the bow ---the 35 lb danfort---a 14 lb hi-tensile good ole' plain-ole' nuttin special danforth---and a stern hook.lemmee tellyaz' that these held so well----they all held the bottom schmutz even when they were hauled up on deck.this stinky smelly schmootzy muck from the bottom of that lagoon was all over the deck,the sails,and I had to leave them as such till I was outta the lagoon an' underway.it was too crowded for me to be concerned about the mess at that time.I dont need to see this on video---its all in my memories :rolleyes:

ebb

04-14-2006, 08:02 AM

Straight line pulling tests that Practical Sailor just published produces scewed results and imco (and many others) are pretty useless. If you were perched over a muck bottom in your Triton or A/C just about anything would keep you stuck there for awhile including a cinderblock or a CQR resting on its left side.

Most real world testing still favors our old standbys CQR and Danforth in ideal bottom conditions. We now have many new choices. And many serious cruisers are moving to the technibal hooks. The pointy spoon shaped anchors led by the French Spade are center stage. If anything can be garnered from straight pull testing it is that the spoon (like the claw and bruce for certain) shaped single blade MAY fill with a piece of the bottom (a piece of mud for instance) and keep the anchor from deeper set. This seems especially true for short scope (less than ideal) anchoring.

THE P.S. TEST SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST TESTED USING TUGGING AND SLIGHT ANGLE CHANGES. I feel these funky tests injure the reputation of Practical Sailor.

Hooped anchors are an attempt to improve on the single tine anchor design by rolling the anchor into its intended position for penetration. On flat firm bottom. The shank or arm of the anchor is attached at the back of the triangular blade, in the middle, and nearly at the front in a variety of designs. The Buegel, I believe the first production anchor with the hoop, may have been all along the ideal technical new age anchor. Their web site has a short essay of their philosophy. Personally, I'm one who has to touch things to understand them.
[IF WE CAN'T HAVE DECENT TESTING THEN LETS AT LEAST SEE THEM ALL LINED UP LIVE TOGETHER!}
While the Buegel is eveidently used succesfully in the Med (and as one wag put it: by mostly German cruisers) it may not be strong enough (I have no idea!) to be used as a storm bower for a small world cruiser. (The galvanized Rocna lookalike is a chunky hook.) I like the Beugel's spare, sleek look - I like its near straight blade with no apendages - it looks like it will slice into nearly any bottom the ocean can come up with like a knife! And when disengaged from the bottom will end up clean in the rollers. Yes???

WE ARE ALL STILL WAITING FOR REAL WORLD IMPARTIAL TESTING TO BE DONE COMPARING ALL THE NEW ANCHORS. IT MUST BE DONE NOW1 That's why this marina muck soup test thing is so uncalled for! Until then we are left with the hype and b.s. of the manufacturers and unsubstantiated opinion.

OK, now,
on to CHAIN and the anchor to chain connector....

{Sarca may well have in the physics of theie slotted blade and shank something quite unique. I really believe that if you tugged on a Sarca it would dive into the sand or muck whatever bottom. It (I'd have to see it and compare) is a concept departure from all the others.
From my perspective, which is heavily esthetic, the design has to be cleaned up and made less buzy. Sailors believe they are more sophisticated than the powerboat guys. If you are going to woo them from their awkward bowers and bulbous bruces, you gotta have a sexy simple form.)

Mac

04-15-2006, 01:04 AM

Yeah your right on those test, complete waste of news print. By the way they were done by Power Boat Reports and reprinted in PS, a sister mag thing I understand.

The Rocna tests were very long and the whole video would take forever to download so I suspect they just picked out what they regard as their serious compeditors. One thing I saw was some very strange behavour of a Bugel (a 25kg version), it did just not want to play the game and had surprisingly low peak load.

Another thing shown was the Sarca setting quick but had very low (and I'm being nice here) loads. It did only just hold 25-30% of what the 2 new generation anchors did. The Rocna boys they did seem to give the Sarca extra attention to try and get higher loads but couldn't get much. These loads were a surprise to them and myself. Mind you we have heard many stories about them sliding. It looks like due to the geometery of the Sarca it will only bury until the shank is flush with the seabed and then it stops. Unless you have a nice clean bottom to dive into I suspect it will never hold high loads as it just does not bury deep like others. Yes it does look very busy or ugly as most people say.

We have done many test pulls over the years and the results of ours and one or 2 others I have read mirror the Rocnas so I'm happy they didn't do any jiggery pockery :)

With all of this 'mines bigger than yours' going on we have designed a couple of 'shoot-out' tests. While not exactly real life, which is damn hard to replicate, they should give us a nice 'head to head' comparison on speed of set, who holds more and re-setting. One test is a knock out round robin thing head to head, should be fun and interesting. Watch this space. I'm about to get test 'suggestions' from any anchor makers watching this now I suspect.

We deal with all of the anchor mentioned on this thread plus others. This does have it's moments but anchors are a person specific item and we find we can talk about just about any anchor but the punter wants what they want. As a 'general rule' so far, some one wants a Spade they leave with one even though they do cost the most down this way. Sort of like a Ferrari owner I suppose, "thats what I want so thats what I'll have". Similar for the Rocna wanters and CQR (we use Manson plows ourselves, lot beter value for $$). The rest will listen and may change if we think it is a better option. Very strangly the Supreme does not have much traction at all, why we can't work out, even with the SHHP tag, maybe still a bit new.

The 'fouling' of the Bruces and its knock-offs is well known. Having played with many anchors I don't see that being as big an issue with the new ones as one might expect. One thing is for sure though, you will always have a little bit of the seabed when you bring them up :D , they do grab a big bit of it. That comment of yours about the mud sliding off the Supreme did seem a bit strange. While that would be handy on retreival what about when buryed? One is good and the other not. Whats your expanded thoughts on that bit?

Who looks the prettiest?. Personally I prefer softer rounded shapes (could just be horny boy thing ;) ) so lean a tad more to Spade and Supreme over Rocna but anyone picking an anchor on looks alone needs their head read obviously. You seen a Stainless Spade...... better than sex !!!!... errr... nearly anyway :D

You are right when you say the Rocna looks a tad clunky, it sure is one very solid well built lump of steel and I would hate to think what condidtions would ever get close to doing it any damage. In the pure strength of construction stakes I would rate the Rocna as the up there with or above the best I've seen. Mind you when it's blowing its tits off who cares what it looks like. I have also never heard a fish complain about the look of any anchor :D

Bugels we don't see many of. There is a bloke making knock-offs and a few overseas boats but that's about it. We've heard mostly, but not all, good about them though.

XYZ's, ABC's, STD's and the rest we don't see many of either. More a US thing I think.

ERIC - coral, Oh what a joy to anchor in...not. It does have a habit of grabbing your chain which is not that bad I suppose as long as the anchor grabs if the chain slides thru. Ooze, soft muck and Danforth patterns do make good bed fellows. As much as some don't like them they do work well in some situations and do store in the bilge nicley. I'll have a big one tucked away on the next big boat (50ft Cat).

Anchor to chain connections - Ye ha! one of my favourites :D . Sexy well made stainless swivel if 3 strand rope is in the rode or a bloody big shackle if it's not.

What ya reckon??

Nice chatting with you all by the way.

eric (deceased)

04-15-2006, 02:30 AM

I prepare my anchor set-ups before I need them.I decide where I want to go before hand and configure what I will need accordingly.as I have done much deep water crossing in no way would I prepare for anchoring in 100 feet of water.I would think 30 feet at the deepest.according to books I read{ya notice I always say---"according to the books I read"}-- the scope should be 7 times deeper than the depth.thats the optimal configuration.when I took my former boat down the intercoastal---I knew that the average depth for where I was going was about 10-12 feet deep.I shortened the amount of line/chain to about only 10 feet of chain and about 50 feet of line---knowing full well that if I decided to anchor---I would be in no more than 10 feet of water ---and most likely in very calm conditions---so the least amount of scope would have been necessary.I also knew it would have only been used as a last resort---being caught powerless in the protected water of the intended route I was considering to follow was well out of the harms way of a true lee-shore danger situation.Also as the situation I was preparing for was only a temporary set up---as any anchor setting anticipated would not be as a long term use---so I simply secured the line to the chain with a galvanized swivel and a handy-dandy-taught in sailing school bowline knot---you know --the rabbitt goes around the tree---thru the hole----then the free end of the line was hand tacked to the line itself.and not to be outdone---I double checked how the existing deck cleat was secured to the deck---and it was decided to be sufficient---then the bitter end was secured to a below deck fitting.remember ----the most important tool you can have is experience---it cant be lost ---borrowed --- or dropped overboard.you can only get more and more of it.

ebb

04-15-2006, 08:03 AM

Mac, your TESTING is most interesting!
And I do hope you keep us posted.
Thanks eric for your input!

This anchor adventure began for me as a search for an ideal - multi-bottom and multi-scope bower for the Ariel. (Bower has come to mean to me the anchor you carry on your bow. Doesn't mean you always carry it there, but it is your main anchor. You may carry a larger storm anchor.)

My impression is that the ole favorites: Danforth, Plow, Fisherman (Luke Herreschoff) are pretty much passe. It is also my impression that the big bite anchors (Bruce, Claw. Max) have real problems too and also may have seen their day in popularity. They have the problem of taking a bite and having a mouthful seem to leave their set with a ball of the bottom stuck in the blade and may tend to hop over the bottom.

BY EXTENSION I see that as a problem with any SCOOP style anchor.
NOT KNOWING NOW, OK? - even if the anchors have sharp points the blade could or does fill with a ball of the bottom it has penetrated.

I have used the analogy of a spoon digging into a melon: once the spoon is started in it will want to follow its radius and scoop back out. I thought that image might describe what happens with round bottom anchor blades. They'll slip in. grab their bite and that's it, follow theirselves back out.

Now the triangular anchors we seem most interested in here many use the scoop principle. Don't know but the same thing that the wider blades do may be happening with the sharp nosed scoopers. Like I say. Mac, I don't have the benefit of actually playing with these babies.

My assumption is that the straighter the blade the more likely the boat will pull it to a deeper set. The harder the pull, the deeper the set. What I see in the Sarca (from afar) is a recognition of that with the added twist of turning the spoon over so that the anchor when tugged on will dive in deeper. Whether this happens in practice is a matter for testing.

The Manson Supreme, while a scoop, has no dish. Therefor one might assume, if the angle of the shank to the blade is correct the anchor could keep setting deeper without wanting to follow a radius out of the bottom.
Get my drift??? Looking at the Buegel, I see the same principle. It looks like a deep setter because the blade is nearly straight.

The point is to FIND THE BEST ANCHOR FOR THE SMALL TO MID-SIZE CRUISER. Has nothing to do with personalities, countries, or size of business. None. Only the best most versitile anchor - could be Tibetan for all I care.

These are assumptions, observations. If I were comparison testing, I would gather ALL anchors (including the Buegel) in a certain sailboat tonnage range
and set up a series of real world and straight pull tests. Might even blindfold the testers so that they could fudge numbers for their personal favorites. :D

craigsmith

04-16-2006, 07:42 PM

BY EXTENSION I see that as a problem with any SCOOP style anchor.
NOT KNOWING NOW, OK? - even if the anchors have sharp points the blade could or does fill with a ball of the bottom it has penetrated.

I have used the analogy of a spoon digging into a melon: once the spoon is started in it will want to follow its radius and scoop back out. I thought that image might describe what happens with round bottom anchor blades. They'll slip in. grab their bite and that's it, follow theirselves back out.No. Ebb the idea is to create a concave shape similar to that of a spoon; this will generate the most resistance. If a blade is filling with a ball of the bottom, it is holding well. If it is letting go of that ball and moving through the seabed, well then it is not holding is it. (In simplistic terms. In fact the "balling" problem has not appeared for the Rocna; even hard clay manages to clear from the blade quite easily. In reality the anchors will bury themselves, but this brings up another issue with testing, as the burial process takes some time. You can't do it when you first set the anchor - it has to have time to work its way down. Therefore the ultimate holding power of most anchors slowly increases from the time it is first set, over perhaps a 12 or 24 hour period, depending on the seabed type).

But the superior nature of a concave fluke is really beyond debate. Concave is better than flat is better than convex, and this has been proven and demonstrated countless times now. Did you not like Graham Alderwick's comment: "My old 30lb Manson plough, while adequate most of the time, and during settled weather, just would not have cut it under these conditions. They should all be relegated to where they belong – on the farm." :cool:

No they will not follow the radius of their curve in the lengthways axis :rolleyes:. If they did that we wouldn't get much very good feedback would we. Saying this is like saying a parachutist will rotate vertically around his 'chute as he falls :p. The motion the anchor wants to perform is related to the average reaction vector of the blade and the angle of pull as dictated by the rode through the shank. And of course all this is very carefully worked out to be optimum.

The Manson Supreme has no curvature in the lengthways axis because they roll the fluke's two laminated layers rather than fabricating it out of brake pressed sections as we do, and it would be too difficult to get the shape right (curve a piece of card then try to make it spoon shaped, and you'll see what I mean). So this is a result of cheaper construction and nothing to do with core design principals.

If I were comparison testing, I would gather ALL anchors (including the Buegel) in a certain sailboat tonnage range and set up a series of real world and straight pull tests. Might even blindfold the testers so that they could fudge numbers for their personal favorites. :DYou would have to consider other factors also. What about strength of the fluke, strength of the shank (in all different directions), weld/build quality, durability, simplicity and ease of construction (important to the consumer also because a complex design generates quality control issues meaning some units are "lemons"), quality of finish (galvanizing), reliability, fit on bow rollers, value (cost), versatility (different bottom types), I could go on...

If we wanted to do well in your hypothetical "comparison testing" (which is the same as what most magazines continually try to do while never understanding all the factors involved - although not all are as bad as Powerboat Reports / Practical Sailor), we could consider your test set-up and build you the perfect anchor that would win every time. But it would be at the sacrifice of most of the factors listed above.

Straight line pulling tests that Practical Sailor just published produces scewed results and imco (and many others) are pretty useless.The Powerboat Reports tests have been mentioned a few times now on this thread. We have a FAQ relating to the results - you can read it here:
www.rocna.com/press/press_0603_ps_faq.pdf (http://www.rocna.com/press/press_0603_ps_faq.pdf)

ebb

04-17-2006, 06:31 PM

craigsmith,
Just because you guys have decided that a spoonshaped anchor is going to work better than any other doesn't make it so. You had your inspiration, you followed thru on it, and here you are in business. There is no superior nature of a concave fluke - unless it is supported by testing. And I'm saying here that all anchors we have mentioned here should be compared with each other in an all-out knock-down deep set fight - befor I spend my bucks based on anybody's unsupported statements.

That 'most anchors slowly increase their holding power over a 12 or 24 hours period' - is not relevant. The subject is spoon shaped anchors. My argument is that spoon shaped blades will take their bite, their set, and will not go deeper naturally because their shape AND THE PULL ON THE RODE will not let them do that.
I believe this statement is in part supported by the video you have on your internet site. Because you do NOT show any pull on your anchor once it is set. Right?

It seems possible that once a Rocna or a Spade or a Max or a Bruce take their set they might dig in more solidly - but by design they cannot dig in much deeper. Because it is not in the nature of their design to do so. My specific point here is unsupported by any testing. BUT what testing we do have seems to indicated that spoonshaped anchors in general have a problem staying set. That is my impression from the tests I've read.

There is also from craigsmith here NO proof that a straightshaped Buegel blade does not set deeper and better. There have been no side by sides and therefor you can't intimate your anchor is better. Well, of course,
YOU CAN SAY IT, BUT SAYING IT DON'T PROVE A THING.

Nor can you say your anchor is better than a Supreme because it is fabricated out of brake-pressed pieces and is more expensive to produce. Again, irrelevant, the point is whether the anchor can do its job well. There is nothing in what you say that proves a radiused straightbladed Manson Supreme cannot set deeper and better than a dog-legged Rocna spooney. What testing of methods and materials, unless it is in plain name calling, do you propose that makes one anchor better than another. "Nyah, nyah, nyah, you don have no 'core design principals,' and you have 'laminated flukes' too! Yuck.
By the way, the design of the Manson Supreme makes the anchor as radically different from the Rocna as the Sarca, no similarity exists except in the roll-over-bar.

And you can't just say that the Sarca convex blade will not do as well as a Rocna because it is somehow inferior to the spiffy concept shape of Rocna. NO PROOF.

Along with other good attributes an ideal anchor should set quickly and once set not pull out or drag but set deeper and deeper still in nearly all bottoms if made necessary by the conditions at the samson post. No excuses.

I want to see your anchor pitted against all comers in whatever sailboat tonnage range agreed upon. Hopefully sailboats under 35' The sole purpose of the test is ease of set, short scope long scope hold, deep set ability, dial testing to pull out or drag and any other, like a veering test that would tell the tale about each anchor in a working mode. And any other parameters agreed upon.

No salesmen, no inuendos, no non sequeturs.

You do have a point: the endless repetition of unsupported statements and enthusiastic bs will influence some unwary to buy an anchor or not buy a competitor' anchor. And who's to say that yours isn't the best when you do say that it is.

Mac

04-19-2006, 12:18 AM

craigsmith,
Just because you guys have decided that a spoonshaped anchor is going to work better than any other doesn't make it so. You had your inspiration, you followed thru on it, and here you are in business. There is no superior nature of a concave fluke - unless it is supported by testing. And I'm saying here that all anchors we have mentioned here should be compared with each other in an all-out knock-down deep set fight - befor I spend my bucks based on anybody's unsupported statements.

Just a quicky reply, G'day again Ebb, by the way.

From all I have seen, done with and heard from my customers the concaved is better than the older convexed shapes comfortably.
Good on ya for being a thinking boaty, you're a dying breed. Not to sure on some of your thoughts though :) but some is still better than none.

That 'most anchors slowly increase their holding power over a 12 or 24 hours period' - is not relevant. The subject is spoon shaped anchors. My argument is that spoon shaped blades will take their bite, their set, and will not go deeper naturally because their shape AND THE PULL ON THE RODE will not let them do that.
I believe this statement is in part supported by the video you have on your internet site. Because you do NOT show any pull on your anchor once it is set. Right?

Its all about angles and pressure. If you keep pulling they will set deeper, bottom condidtions willing of course. This applies to most anchors to a point.
I've seen the raw video and can't agree with your last sentance though.

It seems possible that once a Rocna or a Spade or a Max or a Bruce take their set they might dig in more solidly - but by design they cannot dig in much deeper. Because it is not in the nature of their design to do so. My specific point here is unsupported by any testing. BUT what testing we do have seems to indicated that spoonshaped anchors in general have a problem staying set. That is my impression from the tests I've read.

Sorry just wrong. I've done and read many tests and can't see where you get that from. Take a big spoon down the beach and have a play with it and you may see what Craig and them are talking about.

There is also from craigsmith here NO proof that a straightshaped Buegel blade does not set deeper and better. There have been no side by sides and therefor you can't intimate your anchor is better. Well, of course,
YOU CAN SAY IT, BUT SAYING IT DON'T PROVE A THING.

You're right on that bit to a point :)

And you can't just say that the Sarca convex blade will not do as well as a Rocna because it is somehow inferior to the spiffy concept shape of Rocna. NO PROOF.

Wrong wrong wrong. I have plenty of proof myself and have to fully disagree with you on that bit.

Along with other good attributes an ideal anchor should set quickly and once set not pull out or drag but set deeper and deeper still in nearly all bottoms if made necessary by the conditions at the samson post. No excuses.

100% correct

You do have a point: the endless repetition of unsupported statements and enthusiastic bs will influence some unwary to buy an anchor or not buy a competitor' anchor. And who's to say that yours isn't the best when you do say that it is.

It is hard to be a passionate salesman and not come off looking a tad biais :)

ebb

04-19-2006, 06:24 AM

G'mornin Mac,
Well, we have a bit of a he said she said situation here.

I have reviewed the Rocna video again - and what I see there are STRAIGHT PULL tests showing a claw (Bruce) not setting and a plow (CQR) not setting.

Of the small range of anchors shown in a brief pan shot, a Sarca was in the lineup and was NOT shown later in the video as part of the 'test'. There was also a Spade anchor also NOT shown in the 'test'.

The only assumption one can make is that Rocna is showing itself winning, shall we say, against a couple of lame horses. Big deal. And using a method of 'testing' that seems to be getting general complaints, not only mine. Ofcourse the video is a company promotional. That it is a promo is also its problem, because it has to be extra careful to seem to be truthful or fair.

In the P.S. straight pull mud test the Rocna 15 did well on long scope but dragged on short scope. This to me is an indication that this Rocna is not as versatile nor as dependable as some other anchors in that test. No matter what I think of the test it was one of comparisons and a sort of data was generated from it.
And as I have been wondering: is this a congenital problem of the spoon design?

The Rocna video does show a Rocna set very well on the 'long scope' pull test. It also shows it pulled out (by hand - with requisite drama) with a lump of wet sand in its blade.

The Rocna video is extremely elementary and of no use at all except to introduce a viewer to the anchor first time.

I will stand by my statement on spoonshaped anchors not able to take a deep set
until proven otherwise in a well designed comparison test by an independant source.
In the meantime my attention is on non-spoon anchors and non-plow. I think the new tech anchors are still developing. I don't know how to trust anecdotal evidence, tho I am really happy that you, Mac, contribute your experience to this thread. We must be learning something here! We certainly are getting our lines drawn in the sand.

craigsmith

04-19-2006, 06:49 AM

Of the small range of anchors shown, a Sarca was in the lineup and was NOT shown in the video as part of the 'test'. There was also a Spade anchor NOT shown in the 'test'.

...

In the P.S. straight pull mud test the Rocna 15 did well on long scope but dragged on short scope. This to me is an indication that this Rocna is not as versatile nor as dependable as some other anchors in that test.lol Mac give up . . .

:rolleyes:

Mike Goodwin

04-19-2006, 09:00 AM

lol Mac give up . . .

:rolleyes:
Apparently you don't know Ebb !

Mac

04-19-2006, 05:50 PM

I do get the impression 'the EBB' is a dedicated bloke and won't give up without being totaly satisfied. That's not a bad thing really.

Looking at the whole video I would say the Sarca is not shown as it is not regarded as a serious compeditor. I think it is the 'other new gen anchor' on the chart thing. The Spade probably as it is not as widely known anchor down this way.

The whole video is an hour and a 1/2 so I suspect the lads just put in what they see as the known anchors which are regarded as serious compeditors down this way.

The video on the site could make one think dodgy stuff was afoot but after seeing the whole thing I'm happy to say all anchors were treated exactly the same and as far as 'tests' like this go it was on the straight and level. Yes it is a 'promotional' thing so most would expect a tad of 'padding' or 'truth by omission' which is common practice and quite understandable. As I've mentioned before I would regard the Rocna site as a lot more honest than many others even taking the 'promotional' thing into account.

That PBR (PS) test was so poorly done it does not rate any consideration. read the method and I think the word you will use is 'bizzare'.

The CQR and Claw (bruce knock-off) did not set well beceause thats what they do in real life anyway more than often, this is well known. It was a Bruce knock-off and I suspect more and more they are not as good as the real thing and I also suspect a real one would have done better.

Tony G

04-19-2006, 06:57 PM

craigsmith

04-19-2006, 08:49 PM

Tony you might just as well ask the same question if you lived 2000 years ago:

http://www.sportesport.it/images/Amphorae/anchors/ZZleadScheme1.jpg

The bow and arrow still works rather well eh - but that doesn't mean it's the best choice anymore.

Mac

04-20-2006, 08:59 PM

This has been a very interesting thread to follow.

It is always better when one can walk away with new ideas, a better understanding and more knowledge.

But, my question is...should I replace my Bruce anchor? Is it foolish trust it's hold after I have set it, payed out enough scope for the depth and check it periodically to make sure we're not drifting?

How did people anchor out for all of these years without our newest designs?

should I even sleep tonight

Sleep? Depends how the wife/ girlfriend feels :D

The Bruce and the other more known ones are not 'bad' anchors just things move on and improvements have been made.

I'm sure all will agree that if your anchor has worked well not given you any reason to be worried, why change. If it has been not-setting, letting go or just been a complete pain in the a**e then look at changing.

All the chat about anchors always seems to over look the effect of the rode behind it. You have a good rode and the anchor works better, have a crap rode and even top end anchors will struggle at times.

If I had a Bruce that has not done me wrong, a good rode behind it and I deployed them well, I'd sleep very well.

If a 1960 Morris Oxford (it's a car) gets you from A to B fine why buy a Ferarri? Sure the Ferarri will do it a hell of a lot better but the Oxford will still do it, with some encoragement. When the Oxford packs up look at the Ferarri.

Where EBB I miss him already ;)

ebb

04-21-2006, 07:00 AM

Not an African anchor.
The very first vender inside the entrance to the vender's tents was/is (The Strickly Sail boat show is still in progress) Swiss Tech America. I stopped short because the photo displays had three views of the Wasi. Buegel to me. "You don't happen to have one here, do you?" Gene Lamb, the US franchiser of Swiss Tech, looked down at my feet. I was almost standing on a live one.

The first thing you notice is the s.s / titanium metal and how chunky the anchor is. The shank of this small (8kg, 18#) looked like it was between 3/4 and 7/8" thick.
What is not apparent in any of the photos is what the blade is like. The blade is the same thickness as the shank!!! - with a, let's say 120 degree chamfer underneath on the pointy sides of the triangle blade. The blade is dead flat. It is not hard to imagine this anchor slicing STRAIGHT into any bottom.

The 8kg anchor at the show is not listed in the catalog product line on the web site, which starts at 11kg or about 25#. I haven't had time to read up on this, but it would seem more than adequate for the Ariel. The anchor and its swivel and chain are sold as a system and is very expensive. Strangely, in the catalog, it is given the same amount of space and importance as a cup holder and the boat hooks.

I think the 18kg, 31# would make a fantastic versatile primary anchor capable of penetrating 'mud shale clay gravel volcanic rock and grass.' The anchor looks incredibly strong (hmmm, wonder about the shank to blade weld?) and incredibly capable of PENETRATING a wide variety of bottoms. There are NO curves that imco would keep this anchor from setting deeper as the stress on the rode increases. I'm persuaded this anchor will not 'pop' out of a set once dug in. NO WAY.
[But lets add: that s.s is much more slippery than galvanized and imco more likely to slip. slice. chisel. in deeper.]

Gene allowed that a suitable shackle (perhaps a Suncor straight D with a no snag pin) would do better for American buyers of the Wasi because some swivels sold here have been returned bent. Evidently the manufacturer cannot understand how the Yanks are bending (but not breaking) the swivel. Actually it looks pretty easy to me! The Powerball has a very slender neck. The Powerball and a chainhook are available (sans anchor and chain) thru other vendors like Perko. The chain to anchor connector is a very hot issue.

Gene Lamb told me that he was the sole importer of the Wasi and that it was unavailable in galvanized. Both statements seem to be a stretch. because there is an outfit called inter-yacht.com in NC that sells galvanized at a more reasonable price. Gene also said that Chuck Hawley of West Marine has just completed a new test of anchors that included the Wasi/Buegel. What other usual suspects were included is unknown, so is when the results will be made public. If anyone is interested in the (unsophisticated, as craigsmith calls it) Wasi/Buegel in galvanized I would research to find out if the inter-yacht hook is some sort of a knockoff.

I found that comment of craigsmith's on the SSCA forum. What gets me is how disingenuous (false candor) it is to call the Buegel unsophisticated. In its simplicity and elegance it is extremely sophisticated. Much more so than Peter's knockoff of the design with the added doodahs that the Rocna represents. Falsely sophisticated, perhaps? For instance, putting the bevels on the underside of the Buegel blade is supremely smart, and very sharp.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________

P.S. tests.
1998 -wet packed sand - "The Bruce, in many conditions, is a ferocious setting anchor....In tests by other groups. the Bruce was not as good at ultimate holding power." Bruce, "clear winner".
Jan '99 - sand - Spade & Bulwagga star.
Dec '99 - mud - Barnacle, CQR
Jan '01 - muddy sand - included a 140 degree veer - Bruce, Fortress, Supermax.
Jan '02 - sandy mud - First time with powerboat (twin 90hp OBs) - Quickset best but "popped out at 600# then reset to 780#"
'03 - soft sand on hard sand - set with power boat then rodes led to winch on shore, observed by diver....
google: 03anchor

You take it from there. The WASI clearly will set and set deeper than the competition. It suffers from being extremely expensive in the US, being marketed as a system, and also rather awkwardly marketed.
Maybe craigsmith could get a job over there. They could use some slick marketing. And could see if the Roc will set in Med grass.

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:08 AM

Most of us have no idea what the different types of anchors look like, reccommended sizes and cost.

Its very confusing

maybe somebody could do a cost comparison. I started to, but its difficult . Different sizes and materials.

Post any corrections or additions and I'll incorporate them

Rocna

22 lbs
$320

33 lbs
$394

http://www.rocna.com/home.php?region=na

http://www.suncoastmarine.ca/pricelist.html
(prices in Canadian $)

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:08 AM

Sacra

28.6 lbs
$383

http://www.anchorright.ca/index.php?id=can

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:09 AM

Manson supreme

25 lbs
$165

http://manson-marine.co.nz/SitePages/SupManson.htm

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:10 AM

Bulwagga

17 lb
$250

http://www.noteco.com/bulwagga/

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:10 AM

Wasi buegel.

24 lbs
$259
($489 stainless)

31 lbs
$329
($579 stainless)

Above prices not including "powerball"

http://www.inter-yacht.com/Buegel/BuegelIntro.html

http://www.swiss-tech.com/shops/eng/5anker.htm

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:11 AM

Bruce.

16.5 lbs
$129

22 lb
$186

http://www.imtra.com/bruce_anchors1.html

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:12 AM

CQR

drop forged

15 lbs
$279

20 lbs
$349

25 lbs
$389

http://en.lewmar.com/products/index.aspx?lang=1&template_id=1&page_id=1

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:12 AM

Delta Fastset

14 lbs
$129
($620 stainless)

24 lbs
$184

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:13 AM

Simpson Lawrence Horizon Claw

16.5 lbs
$55
($295 stainless)

22 lbs
$73

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:14 AM

Danforth

Standard

14 lbs
$46

16 lbs
$63

25 lbs
$82

Deepset II HT

13 lbs
$160

25 lbs
$270

http://www.danforthanchors.com/

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:16 AM

XYZ

stainless

10.6 lbs
$395

http://www.xyzmarineproducts.com/

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:16 AM

Supermax

28 lbs
$375

without hinge
18 lbs
$270

http://www.creativemarine.com/catalog/text/anchor.html

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:17 AM

Spade anchor

aluminum

10 lbs
$ 315

15 lbs
$410

steel

22 lbs.
$315

33 lb
$380

http://www.spade-anchor.com/Site%20anglais/US/default_US.html

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 10:55 AM

Fortress

aluminum
can be disassembled

7 lbs
$120

15 lbs
$170

http://www.fortressanchors.com/fortress_anchors.html

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 11:08 AM

Quickset

14 lbs
$130

22 lbs
$160

http://www.kingstonanchors.com/

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 11:48 AM

Davis Talon

http://www.davisanchor.com/

c_amos

04-21-2006, 12:46 PM

Thanks for the review Commander Pete,

I took what you had, added a couple of prices I found, and sorted by price.

Anchors Weight / material Price

Simpson Lawrence Horizon 16.5 lbs $55 hi tensile steel?
Bruce. 16.5 lbs $129
Delta Fastset 14 lbs $129 manganese
Quickset galvanized 22 lbs $160
Manson supreme 25 lbs $165
Danforth.... 13 lbs $169
buegel 20 lb $200.. galvanized
Sacra anchor 28.6 lbs $2483 (?)stainless
bulwagga anchor 17 lb $250
Simpson Lawrence Horizon 16.5 lbs $295stainless
Rocna 25 lbs $300+ (I called and got a quote that was $400+)
Supermax 28 lbs $375
Sacra anchor 28.6 lbs $383 galvanized
Spade anchor 33 lb $391steel
Xyz 11 lbs (?) $395
Spade anchor 15.4 lb $410 aluminum
buegel 20 lb $410 stainless
Cqr 25 lbs $495 galvanized
Delta Fastset 14 lbs $620 stainless
Wasi anchor 24 lbs $646
Davis Talon anchor ? (found their website, but no price)

commanderpete

04-21-2006, 01:11 PM

Thanks Craig, made some changes

ebb

04-21-2006, 02:16 PM

youz guys is fantastic.
It's a go 'round. You've suddenly dedrivelized at lot of this stuff.

Don't know yet what the difference is between the Wasi and the Buegel.
The photos and the hype are identical. One guy said the Wasi is a commercial copy of the Bugelanker. But what does that make the Buegel?
It probably is cool to name its inventer: 3 time circumnavigator Rolf Kaczirek, evidently a German national, and probably not attached to the Swiss Navy.

Inter-Yacht say they have "sole distribution rights for North America" Here's prices from their site
Galv. 2.8t boat, 1/4" chain - 11kg = 24# - $259
Galv. 4.6t boat, 5/16" chain - 14kg = 31#- $329
s.s.t 2.8t boat, 1/4" chain - 11kg = 24# - $489
s.s.t 4.6t boat, 5/16" chain - 14kg = 31# - $579
This is just the anchors, they have no prices for the Powerball or chain.

Swiss Tech Am.
s.s.t 24# - $620
s.s.t 31# - $730
1/4" Powerball - $163 5/16" Powerball - $197. Better prices elsewhere.

It could be said that if you buy the system from the importer and are sure that all three parts - anchor, swivel, chain - come from the same manufacturer then you should have a very dependable and matched anchoring setup, strength for strength. You know, not some shackle of unknown material out of china, not some quicklink hopefully holding your questionable rusting chain. Alain Hylas (Spade, SSCA forum) says you should never use chain unless you are in coral, anyway.

Mac

04-21-2006, 02:24 PM

yDon't know yet what the difference is between the Wasi and the Buegel.

Wasi is the Company (a big German Stainless gear supplier) and Buegel is the anchor they make/sell.

Like a Lewmar CQR.

Nice research Commander and Amos. interesting to see them all lined up like that.

craigsmith

04-21-2006, 07:09 PM

Rocna

25 lbs

$400+:confused:

We do not, to my knowledge, produce a 25lbs model.

Current New Zealand pricing:
Rocna 10 (22lbs): NZ$450 ~= US$270
Rocna 15 (33lbs): NZ$560 ~= US$335

Wasi is the Company (a big German Stainless gear supplier) and Buegel is the anchor they make/sell.And Buegel is the term for the anchor, "Bügelanker" litterally meaning "handle anchor" or "roll-bar anchor" in German. It has become a rather generic design; since it is so simply built, there are more copies than originals around the Mediterranean, and "Buegel" is no longer a brand.

Alain Hylas (Spade, SSCA forum) says you should never use chain unless you are in coral, anyway.I don't think so!

c_amos

04-21-2006, 10:04 PM

Craigsmith,

Commander Pete had originally listed the Rocna as "$300+" and changed it after my post. I had pretty much decided to order a Rocna 10, and contacted the company in Canada, Suncoast Marine (http://www.suncoastmarine.ca/pricelist.html) that was listed as the North American distributor for your anchor.

The $400 was based on the quote I recieved at the time. I wonder if the price has been lowered? I will look for my notes on Monday.

craigsmith

04-21-2006, 10:38 PM

I had pretty much decided to order a Rocna 10, and contacted the company in Canada, Suncoast Marine (http://www.suncoastmarine.ca/pricelist.html) that was listed as the North American distributor for your anchor.

The $400 was based on the quote I recieved at the time. I wonder if the price has been lowered? I will look for my notes on Monday.Well it's there in your own link :confused: lol, CA$365 ~= US$320.

Prices outside North America a bit cheaper again: NZ$450 ~= US$270

Mac

04-21-2006, 10:53 PM

Alain Hylas (Spade, SSCA forum) says you should never use chain unless you are in coral, anyway.

A very popular theory judging by the number of boats you see with no chain :confused: :confused: :confused:

Everyone to their own so I'm not knocking Alain but I think that theory just does not stack up in so many ways, sorry.

commanderpete

04-22-2006, 03:11 AM

Thanks for the corrections, working them in. Keep 'em coming

Don't think I've ever seen a photo lineup of anchors before

Any other worthy candidates?

ebb

04-22-2006, 07:27 AM

C'Pete,
google:

SOFT MUD BOTTOM ANCHOR TEST

Anchor Reset Tests

Another anchor called The Barnacle is included in the comparisons.

commanderpete

04-24-2006, 12:07 PM

Here's that link

http://www.creativemarine.com/newprodct/anchor%20test/soft_mud_bottom_anchor_test.htm

The test is really a joke

Cant find any info on the Barnacle--no website, no distributor.

Its the one on the right in this photo

CapnK

04-25-2006, 04:49 AM

Just gonna throw this out, since most of this talk is speculation about anchors we are wondering about/haven't used, and this anchor didn't get talked about much in the prior "in depth" (groan!) discussion... ;)

I *have* used the Bulwagga, for 2 1/2 years, and it performed *wonderfully*. I used it on bottoms composed of mud, sand, oysters, and "pluff mud" (a very soft, very sinky type of mud), or some variation of these. It was designed to work in grass and rock, however, so I think it may well vie for being a great all-around anchor. The one thing I always see written about it - almost always by folks who don't have/haven't had one - is that "it's difficult to stow" due to it's shape. If that's all there is to criticize, well... ;)

Then, make it your bowser, and leave 'er up there on the pointy end of your boat, where she stows well. :D lol

My experience with the Bulwagga has me looking at all of these other anchors with an eye towards which will be my secondary.

Noted before, but the Bulwagga carries a "1 year, 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed" warranty, and said warranty doesn't have any loopholes that I can see.

For rode, I use 30' of chain spliced onto laid line. I used the same rode with the Danforth-type anchors which I had/used before the Bulwagga.

Last - as stated before, I have no financial or otherwise interest, I'm not affiliated with Noteca/Bulwagga at all, other than the fact that I just learned to love their product after putting it to good use in a lot of varied conditions.

C'pete - good job on those pics! :D

c_amos

04-25-2006, 05:34 AM

It was designed to work in grass and rock, however, so I think it may well vie for being a great all-around anchor. The one thing I always see written about it - almost always by folks who don't have/haven't had one - is that "it's difficult to stow" due to it's shape. If that's all there is to criticize, well... http://www.pearsonariel.org/discussion/images/smilies/wink.gifAnd in a pinch it would make a nifty radar reflector also.... :D

http://www.noteco.com/bulwagga/Anchor%20tip%20forward%20web2.jpg

Adam

07-04-2006, 04:57 PM

This isn't specific to Ariels or Commanders, but if you'll look on the beach, you'll see what was reported to me to be the cause of this incident. I like the convenience of the danforth-types, but I sleep more easily with a bruce.

http://www.svjourney.org/pics/beach/wreck2.jpg

Bill

07-25-2006, 02:44 PM

Ebb writes: This is the Manson Supreme 25# $170. Let's call it my winner of the anchor fracas. The fluke is indeed straight but it is curved. The fluke is NOT bent from its tip to its heel. My reasoning tells me that this blade will dig in and keep digging in under pressure from the rode and not round out as spoon shaped anchors seem to want to do. Since it is not cupped I would think that mud would fall off more easily when retrieved. The hoop is held on with extra tabs welded to the blade. The tip is quite sharp and is reinforced. The device always rights itself to this position (except one, see below).

Bill

07-25-2006, 02:46 PM

Ebb continues: Here is the Supreme in its only compromising position. Note the tip reinforcement under the fluke extending under the shank base. Note also the same at the hoop end. The hoop pipe is open and looks galvanized inside. This anchor looks like it'll do its job in more bottoms than any other. The only question is whether the anchor works well in smaller sizes and weights.

ebb

07-25-2006, 04:39 PM

Adam's pic, was it the bent danforth or the headless raven that was the cause....?

It sometimes comes up often as not that it is a 'bruce style' or a 'danforth style' anchor.

The style of anchor is, of course, no guarantee of its trustworthyness. That danforth style anchor in the photo bears no resemblance to the USNavy Danforth* anchor in my possession. It has a forged shank that tapers from 3/4" at the shackle to 1 1/4" at the base where the flukes swivel. The hinge area looks like it's been hot riveted together. The flukes are 1/4" with a wide tapering flanges on the inner edges. It's stamped with a contract number and the date 1944. There not a hint of rust anywhere in the galvanizing. Probably pretty close to the real thing.

The Danforth anchor I have would probably turn under load in mud or sand if the wind shifted without bending its shank. The thing looks like it can do a job of work.
What would convince anybody to put their lives and their boat at the end of a cheap flimsy anchor? 338 came with a skinny "Hi-Tensil" Danforth (repeated on the faded label 10 times) The galvanizing is turning crusty white. The contrast between that one and the WWII one is instructional. It shows how easy it is we can be led astray by a comforting buzz word. One of my two Danforth anchors is an IMPOSTER. If I looked close would I find the word 'oblivion' stamped in its shank?

There seems to be a lot of folderol and flimflam in the anchor business. If it were possible I believe there should be a set of tests and standards an anchor should pass befor marketing. Maybe an anchor should be graded one two and three, based on strength and holding power. It would mean that it would be tested befor marketing. It's probably unfair to the little guy, but there's money and lives on the hook.

The Manson Supreme is a cool anchor - 25# distributed between a wide SHARP pointed blade - a roll-over bar that does what it's supposed to and adds to the anchor's handling ease - and a 12mm (7/16") shank that uses its weight there to help tip the anchor onto its weighted tip. Pretty clever design. Would guess that the anchor would turn while buried without harm to the shank. Haven't dragged it behind a SUV yet.

__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
*The Danforth Anchor was invented by Bill Danforth in Berkeley CA (according to "pyacht".) Obviously sometime befor 1943 and was sold to the military and a seaplane company. TieDownEngineering bought the pattern from Rule in 2000 and now makes them. The older anchor I have evidently is a surplus Navy modified (very beefy) version by an H.P.Shipley. If the anchor mentioned above that came with 338 is an original pattern Bill Danforth, then it was definitely time to move on to a 'new generation anchor'.

ebb

07-25-2006, 04:54 PM

Entered the above post twice. Sorry...
Went to the Manson Supreme site to kind of check out my observations. I agree pretty much minus the hype. And also minus actual use. Need a bunch of observations by users, mostly in our boat-size range.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

The advertising copy writer for the Supreme, while he or she credits the French Spade with starting the 'new generation' anchor evolution, does not understand that the Manson anchor is not a spoon. If I dipped my new anchor in a pan and tried to lift water out with the blade it would not work. Will not hold water. The M.S. is not a spoon anchor like 95% of the others and that is a huge difference imco in its deployment. And imco is the reason why it will work better and more intelligently than any spoon or cup shaped anchor will.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

[Went back to the Mocna (so spelt at another anchor forum probably to avoid kiwi vender popups - we'll see...) site to see if anything had changed in the video. Nope.
Apropos the obvious imitation danforth in the Adam pic above, the claw and plow anchors used in the SUV pull test are both (admitted in the video text)imitations of the style. The claw was not a Bruce and the plow not a CQR. Would the real ones have performed differently? Uh-huh. Well, so WHAT is authentic testing? Let's use authentic anchors for starters.
Wonder if the 1944 danforth style anchor (it doesn't say Danforth on it anywhere) I have is close to what Mr Danforth invented?
I would (briefly) like to have a Mocna to compare with the Supreme. In images the Mocna fluke looks proportionally longer, ie narrower. It really is more of a spade shape than a spoon, or maybe a pan shape in that it will hold material in its concave top. The hoop attachment looks identical to me to the Manson. I might have ordered a Mocna earlier on in this exercise if it wasn't for that strange video.)

c_amos

08-31-2006, 07:14 AM

The correct contact info for Azure Marine,
that Ebb bought his Madison Supreme from;

Toll-Free Number 1-888-586-4732

Southeast Florida
954-962-4515

(the phone number was not right in the post earlier in this thread.)

OBTW;

Manson 25 pound Supreme anchor (galvanized)
$173.001$173.00Sub Total:$173.00 Handling:$5.00 UPS Ground:$21.42 Grand Total:$199.42 http://www.azuremarine.com/store/detail.asp?product_id=MAN:S25G

ebb

08-31-2006, 01:46 PM

Craig, Thanks.
Went out to look at the Supreme again. It's a $200 anchor alright.
Noticed there's no eye for the anchor bouy in back of the fluke.
But find a carbinger to tie a bouy line to
that would slide on the hoop.

The hoop is further behind and higher than the end of rock shackle channel
and pulling there on the trip line may do a better job tipping the anchor out of trouble anyway.

Don't know about sliding any shackle down the groove...
is it impolite to ask if anybody has done it, like blind from up on deck?
Seems like the unavoidable upward pull from the boat would slide the shackle right back up the shank. ;)

Check out google:
Wilson, the Story of an Anchor Buoy
the blueline address is too long.

c_amos

08-31-2006, 04:12 PM

Ebb,

I put in a plug for you with the Azure marine folks, I wnet with the Supreme after followng this thread.... (I sold my CQR, rather then get it re-galvinized)

Here is the link to; Wilson: The Story of an Anchor Buoy (http://research.microsoft.com/~jamesrh/Boating/TechnicalArticles/WilsonAnchorBuoy.htm)

ebb

08-31-2006, 06:32 PM

Craig, You SOLD the CQR BEFOR you got the Supreme?
Yoicks old chap, that's confidence! Upon receiving it,
I hope you post your impressions here or on another thread.

And I sure hope you take the plunge with it
and record every nuance. How it sets, how it does in hard stuff.
How it holds in mud. I'm dying to find out if it's
another straw in the wind. Or something real.

Believe guys have more problems with intuition than the gals.
I've learnt not to trust my socalled feelings. Trusting logic is equally
dangerous because it's too hard to cut the human factor out.
If you are going to talk with your tiller and talk to your sails
you are going to have a special relationship with your anchor.
Some folks even have a thing with their anchor buoy! Viz "Wilson".

I hope our Supreme has some endearing (enduring?) qualities.
I do respond to the blue denim working anchor look of
old fashion galvanized steel.

Above all I hope we have a relationship based on unbending trust! :D

CORNAN

08-31-2006, 06:40 PM

One of my customers clued me to this thread and I appreciate the mention of Azure Marine. We're still a small company with low overhead, but even our prices will have to inch upwards a bit soon.

On the Manson stainless steel Supreme: This anchor is the only SS anchor we get that isn't polished - the reason is that the stainless Supreme is made with a 2205 (high tensile stainless steel) shank instead of a 316L shank. 2205 is twice the price of 316L.

We're still trying to get the SS product at a better cost in any event, but right now it's relatively pricey as compared to the galvanized model.

commanderpete

09-22-2006, 12:22 PM

The October '06 issue of Sail Magazine has an article where they tested 14 brands of anchors on hard sandy bottoms.

The Rocna seemed to come out on top, followed closely by the Manson.

Surprising to see that the Fortress and Hydrobubble did very well too.

I'm sure the methodology employed in the testing could be questioned.

Anchors tested:

CQR-35lb Delta-35lb Manson Supreme-35lb Rocna-32-lb Spade-35lb Wasi-35lb WM Danforth Style-26lb XYZ-12.5lb Sarca-33lb Oceane-38-lb Hydrobubble-16lb Fortress FX37-22lb Bulwagga-28lb

Quote: "Like the Manson, the Rocna, with its sharp point and roll bar, was one of the better-performing designs we tested."

Quote: "In the end, we were surprised that the CQR, CLaw, XYZ, and Performance 20 performed poorly in our test and were impressed with the results of the new sharp-point/roll-bar designs, along with the Hydrobubble and Fortress."

ebb

09-23-2006, 09:02 AM

SLEEPING ON THE RODE.
Haven't seen the article myself yet, but it would be disappointing if it's another straight-pull test. Wouldn't you agree that this type of test is unacceptable for cruisers - and just as unacceptable for the weekender?

We need a committee of sailors and cruisers to devise a test, and a method of acceptable testing for a sailboat's PRIMARY anchor. We need standards. Otherwise it will forever be bs, hearsay, opinion, more bs and hype! Maybe anchors could be graded with a number or letter on five or six points:

>Ease of set (variety of bottom)
{1 to 5 scores on various bottoms: mud & loose mud, hard, soft, crusty sand, gravel, weed, coral, rock -- something that would avoid manufacturer's claims)

>Holding power (blade area / long and short scope / lbs of pull)

>180degree reset

>Manufacture (one piece/articulated, welded, forged)

>Stowing / launching (type of craft)

>Some way of equating size of boat with size and weight of anchor.

There are some informational charts that list and compare anchor styles. There is no standard for comparisons or even testing. Real time tests would include an agreed anchoring style: so many feet leader chain per length of boat to nylon rode.

Will it be difficult designing such a test? The committee should have no ties with industry. Anchors should not be gathered for a smack down elimination - the who's-on-top contest atmosphere we have now - but individually tested. A manufacturer of a new anchor could assign the new number system in a patent-pending fashion, until it is independantly tested. Standard bottoms would be the problem, but why couldn't it be done? Anchors could be shipped to areas that have 'standard bottoms' cruisers are interested in for a specific test. Anchors could receive a global or regional recognition - with the numbers left up to the skipper for evaluation.

No government agency involved. Private, privately funded, privately sponsered.
Easy to imagine yachtsmen of repute testing an anchor using a common printed form. With the data collected and published by a reputable organisation. Would be an enormous service to the boat community.

C'pete's Rode Rider anchor-checkcam might be a great tool to use here. {Imagine it would be mobetta to send the cam down for a looksee using the anchor bouy line rather than the tackle. Perhaps the only way!}:D

c_amos

09-24-2006, 04:41 PM

Just got back from Wilmington where I sailed the boat down and took my Captains liscence tests.

I normally anchor a couple times a week, but mostly just use my lunch hook on afternoon sails. I took my shiney new Manson with me for the trip, I anchored for the night half way there, half way back, and used it again for the afternoon stop half way up the river.

I normally try to set pretty close to a 7:1 scope, but tried the Manson at about 5:1 the first night, and just over 4:1 the second. Normally I would not think too much of the results of using the anchor so few times but I am impressed so far.

THe first night, there was about 15k of wind, but there was 2.5k of current, that turned during the night. From the GPS, there appeared to be no change in position outside of the swing circle (no drag). THe bottom was sand with some weed cover. The anchor set quickly, and apparently reset quickly when the current switched.

THe return trip I anchored in the same place, it is on the ICW, with very little protection (behind the 'BC' mark, just south of Surf City). THe wind was blowing pretty good, forecast for 25k, probably gusting slightly higher.
I let out enough rode for about a 4:1 scope (for testing).
The anchor alarm never went off, but the bread crumbs look like someone colored over the swing circle. THe wind and current (again, 2.5, and switching during the night) swung the boat through the entire circle, but there appeared to be no drag. I would not have trusted a Danforth in these conditions unless I had two set in a V with the roades linked.

I stopped on the river for a quick swim, and the clean the boat up before I got back to the marina. I gave it enough rode to set, and then choked it up short. It held with the 10-15k wind.

I used the rode for my stern anchor, which is powerboat rigged (6' of chain) :D
The anchor was no harder to retrieve then my CQR had been, but did not pinch my fingers like the CQR did. The flukes came up pretty clean, but the roll bar drained sand and mud in the cockpit. Won't be an issue once the roller is set up on the bow for it.

Really early, probably too early to tell but so far I am pleased with my Manson supreme.

ebb

09-24-2006, 11:28 PM

Craig,
Sounds pretty good! Actually:
GREAT!
Like that bit about doing a full swing around.
I'd be sleeping on deck with a wrap of the warp around my leg feeling for a dragging anchor.

You'd have to be gaining confidence in this Supremo - or you would be toast! So what's this anchor alarm? Crockery floating on bread crumbs on the cabin table? What kind of bread? When the boat acts up it'll slide the plate off, Right?

Done a lot of dipping for tips on the net. One of them they say to use clay to fill the spaces in the chain pipe while sailing to keep the water out. Yes.... was wondering were to keep that stash of clay handy?

Could try some clay in roll-bar openings.:rolleyes:
Let's see.... How about a bungie hooked inside? Pull to clear.
Corks? Rubber stoppers? Spray can foam?
Who woulduv thought the tube would fill up with mud?
May be worth asking Manson what they do...?
Maybe it's an extra design benefit - remember the days you'd arm your sounding lead with tallow to see what kind of bottom you were going to anchor on?
Wonder where you'd keep your tallow stash handy?

Short scope holding is very cool. Very good! So far the hook is dependable. AND... you did not have to dive down to set it by hand! Fantastic!!!:cool:

S.Allen

09-25-2006, 07:24 AM

Just got back from Wilmington where I sailed the boat down and took my Captains liscence tests.

I saw you go by Swan Point Marina yesterday, around 11:00a.m. Good looking boat.

ebb

09-26-2006, 09:13 AM

C'pete, That's a good selection of anchors Sail used in their test. And the weights imco are right there at the primary storm anchor cut off (Manson S.35#) for what an A/C could reasonably carry. I'm assuming Craig has a 25# like I do. Again, smaller anchors are lighter and may not set as well as heavier ones, cut thru the grass or crust etc. Real life anchor setting is also about procedure and technique and tackle. So far so good. Thanks to Faith and Craig!
Maybe all those non-sailing perennials parked in marinas are there BECAUSE they have bruces and seacures on their bows. Like they had to anchor a few times and had bad experiences?
I remember somebody complaining about the beugel/wasi NOT being sharp enough. {Can find nothing on 316A5 "titanium fortified" steel the buegel is said to be made from. Assume with stainless you can grind an edge on the anchor.}

Looked up briefly Cornan's 2205 s.s.
It is a more modern highly alloyed steel. (Eye of a newt, hair of a bat) It's not only twice as expensive but twice as strong as 316L. Learnt this time that 316L is a different alloy than 316 and not just a pickling process after manufacture. 2205 (22% chromium / 5% nickel - the small % of nickel indicates a 'duplex' stainless - and the steel is magnetic) is easily welded but has to be done very carefully. It is very resistant to crevise and pitting corrosion. Not only is it used in dental bridges but evidently at lot of it is made into rebar for "100 year" concrete bridges. Good range there! 2205 doesn't have to be polished to help in preventing corrosion - maybe that's why they don't bother. Interesting tradeoff: Since it is twice as strong, you may only need half as much. 2205 has no problem being welded to 316L. But ah don't know. Can see why the bruce lovers like the fact there's no weld to go bad on their's.

NEVERTHELESS, who can afford the Stainless Supreme???
$802 for the 25#, Azure Marine.

ebb

09-27-2006, 10:16 AM

I did send off what I thought was a friendly email to a VP at Manson about the mud collecting attributes of the Manson Supreme hoop
Be a surprise if we get an answer.

Comparing the Supreme with the Mocna (by picture) - you can see that both makers run the hoop past the fluke underneath. On the Supreme the tube ends protrude below the bottom of the fluke about two inches. You have to believe that these impediments are designed to force mud, sand, pebbles UP INTO THE TUBE. Because they protrude below the slicing action of the blade into the seabed.

The Supreme has that nice radiused shape to the fluke. Two half moons of material are removed from the sides at the back so that the hoop seats snug into the blade. The two inch extensions of the hoop then have gusset triangles welded in that essentially hold and reinforce the hoop at the correct angle. Careful welding connects all the joins.

Reinforcing the hoop under the fluke is troublesome. It obviously forces mud up into the hollow hoop which can't permanently be plugged - and there are also those two tight little nooks that will pack with mud bottom. When you focus on it, it seems rather odd to have those thumbs sticking out the bottom of the anchor. They really serve no purpose, infact they probably impede the purpose of the anchor. Wouldn't you say?

Imco reinforcement can just as strongly be done on top with similar triangles resulting in little or no discontinuity to the bottom of that nice curved blade. The hoop ends could be cut even with the bottom at a more 'open' angle that may be less likely to fill and more likely to empty. I think the curve of the fluke lends itself to top reinforcement and the hoop would turn out just as strong and be more protected. And more tidy.:rolleyes:

Hopefully Manson will be open to an alternative like this. Mocna then will have no 'infringements' on their borrowed design to complain about!

ebb

09-29-2006, 08:31 AM

Anyone doing some pre-rainy season cruising in the Bay Area
want to use my brand new 25# Manson Supreme
and report on it here?:D

ebb

09-29-2006, 06:20 PM

Most important anchor test of the decade. It's great to see all the anchors mentioned in our discussion here (both kiwi and roo), plus a bunch more - so far as we consumers can tell - tested impartially and fairly. The weights of the anchors are generally out of our range. Guys from West Marine* are represented at the event as well as the magazine press, including Yachting Monthly from the UK. A lot of money was spent putting this test together. A lot of money will be made by MARKETERS and manufacturers whose anchors came out on top. And that is wonderful for the small guys. Lot of claws and plows at the last flea market I went thru!

I hope there is a followup 'testing' stage that will look at how the anchors are made. How they are put together, viz the welding mostly. It's too bad that a couple of classics - the Bruce and the CQR - have probably seen their day. If they had one thing going for them, they were well made. Shanks welded to the top of the fluke in the modern anchors may eventually become a problem as they age and wear. As on the Supreme.

(I think that a redundancy has to be built in by having the shank inserted thru a slot in the fluke when it's being made and then welded top and bottom. The shank could be forged wider at the end so that there is no way it could be pulled thru the fluke even if the weld went bad. Like the handle on a pick axe)

However, the Manson holding - in sand or is it clay - on short scope (THREE TO ONE ! ! ! ) to 5000 lbs just makes me feel warm all over! There are a few others.

The three stars of the test: Supreme, Mocna, and the Hydrobubble did a little better than the rest in sand over clay or unspecified 'claylike sand' (see chart: 'New Brighton' pg 68 Sail 10/06) - just not good enough. It may mean we have to learn how to set the anchor we carry in difficult bottoms. More than dropping and dragging it! We little guys can't carry a whole range of hooks. And we may have to purchase an anchor that can be kept SHARPENED! Stainless?? That may be the key.

Can't tell if the methodology is flawed, but it looks like they covered all the bases. Practical Sailor has marina mud on its face. I'm ready for the Shana Rae to host a real mud test, a grass test, the coral test, the gravel test. Same suspects.
It is curious how some anchors just disappear from the group. Big Max, Barnacle, for instance.

Sail compared with Cruising (I think they're sister publications) is probably bought mainly by the marina crowd. From photos and features they think we are very partial to six figure boats over forty feet that carry no anchors at all or bruces and cqrs. Even with this featured article I find only two ads in the October issue for anchors: Fortress and Lewmar. Both did surprisingly well in the test.
There is a Practical Sailor/PowerBoat test in which The Hydrobubble (then called Hydrodyne) failed totally in a reset test.

__________________________________________________ _______________________________________
*In the non-Practical Sailor anchor testing research you can do on the net the name Chuck Hawley of West Marine appears consistantly from the beginning. The West Marine sponsored 'real world' tests in sand and mud from 1990 and '95 have Mr Hawley's name associated with them. I don't know what C.W.'s position is at W.M. but it obviously has everything to do with the products they sell. If we take the tests (including the most recent Sail published test) as legit, we also have to realize that the skew is toward marketing and the marine industry. P.S. imco seems to be moving in the direction of industry away from cunsumer protection (THAT'S JUST AN IMPRESSION) - but it is deplorable that P.S. was not aboard for the testing.)

We have to ask whether the assencion of one product over another is due to excellence or marketing. We can find plenty of sailors who still totally trust their Bruces, their CQRs and their Danforths. Might be just a style change, eh?

You can say that truly impartial and therefor truly valid anchor testing has never happened.:eek:
My Opinion.

commanderpete

10-02-2006, 09:41 AM

The Sail Magazine article is posted on Rocna's website in pdf format, starting on page 2

http://www.rocna.com/press/press_0610_wm_sail_testing.pdf

craigsmith

10-02-2006, 11:24 PM

ebb

10-03-2006, 09:42 AM

Steve Mair of Manson did reply to the email I sent about the hoop shipping mud. After explaining that the anchor took a lot of time to develop he says, "The winglets were placed underneath to help the 'sole' of the anchor stop from settling deep into the bottom prior to the anchor setting."

Then he says they may play with the top location of the 'winglets' this summer. I'd ask if there is enough braking power by these 'winglets' on the underside of the Supreme for anything but firm sand? Mud, for instance?

I believe the concept is that the anchor is more likely to trip forward when setting with the pull on the shank if there is a bit of 'stop' under the sole. THAT is a new idea in anchor design, and I'm not convinced. In grass bottom the impediments sticking out of the sole may stop the blade from a deep set. Steve Mair says they haven't had a complaint yet! But Craig says Manson's have been returned to the vender to exchange for Mocna's. May have been the website.

Perhaps the shank has to be made a bit longer to weigh the tip down? Tho the chain leader should take care of that aspect.

imco the impediments may have - in the Sail/Santa Cruz test and in that harder bottom of the three test locations - kept the Manson Supreme from digging in deeper befor it released. Dragged. Tore out. What, at 4000#? Of course the Rocna has the same thingies.

One thing: they used 1" nylon warp. How much stretch in that stuff?

Congratulations to Rocna on its great showing!

ebb

10-04-2006, 10:26 AM

Saw this neat fitting used (instead of a shackle) for connecting chain to the anchor shank on a UK Spade Anchor site.

A double jaw toggle on the end of the anchor would indeed make a slim easy to slide in channel or house fitting for the chain - instead of the usual oversized anchor shackle. But thinking about it, the clevis pins have cotterpins that make fine meathooks. Can you trust your boat to soft cotterpins? And they be another maintenance item, have to replace them regularly. That's a problem for me, a shackle can be wired secure and a clevis pin can't.

Secondly, I haven't found double jaw toggles in galvanize. It doesn't seem like a type of fitting that would be because of the closed inside bearing surfaces. Stainless steel on the end of a galvanized anchor ain't smart, either. Maybe titanium? I'm gonna associate this not so good idea with a Spayed anchor niow!
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

The connection of chain to anchor is one of the oldest problems around. The screwpin bow shackle is still a pretty good connect. The only annoying thing is the pineye sticking out. But that eye can be wired easy and can be cranked on when time to change the shackle. Course if the shackle gets corroded you might wish you had a pin you could knock out. Galvanised are cheap, easy to find, multi-useful.

I've seen a screw shackle that has a small tidy shouldered head with a small eye just big enough to pass three or four turns of wire thru. They may have been more 'D' shaped too - obviously meant to be channel friendly. Wiring can be done neat, but it's still pretty funky.
I think a better compact galvanised loose pin shackle is yet to be invented.

>>>Wiring the pin certainly makes the skipper feel better. I can 'see' a shackle forged with wire grooves in its body into which wire can be wound from the pin. The wire would be protected from chaff, and the pin could be knocked thru when the chain has to be removed.

>>>Also, a similar idea: If there were holes thru the fat part of an appropriate galvanised anchor shackle body the clevis pin goes thru, a cotterpin in each side could go thru matching holes in the clevis pin and - here's the thing - the cotters would simply be bent, squeezed out of harms way into grooves forged into the sides of the shackle Simple: the grooves would protect the cotters from chaff and becoming meathooks. How come nobody thought of that befor?;) $12.95 at yer favorite marine store!

Bill

11-15-2006, 06:51 PM

craigsmith

11-15-2006, 07:14 PM

A copy of the October, 2006 Sail Magazine was on the optometrist table today, so the reading was a little more pleasant than usual. Beginning on page 60, there is a rather lengthy article on anchor testing that is a worthwhile read.

There main conclusion: "Anchor design is evolving, but our results still confirm the rule of thumb that every boat should carry at least three different anchor designs and weights to deal with a wide variety of bottom types."
The SAIL testing has been discussed above.

In any case their conclusion is one thing we disagree with. As a matter of fact, several anchors displayed a consistency of performance that is very desirable. Furthermore it is hard to see how they can draw such a conclusion, when they have only tested on one bottom type, not a variety.

ebb

11-16-2006, 06:31 AM

Craig,
Another take on that quoted statement is that the main sponser of the comparison tests, West Marine, is overstocked with unevolved anchors. They'll have to have inventory clearance sales to cut rate them to unevolved skippers.
I don't think the danforths will disappear suddenly from the stores. But they are being generally seen now (confirmed by testing) as single bottom, limited use anchors.

95% (made that up) of all exposed bow anchors you see in marinas are danforth, plow, or claw. Of course 95% (made that up) of all marina boats don't go sailing either.
But those that do leave harbor have the right to expect the best and most versitile anchors to be made available to them. We had better be informed.

That's why the methodology and intent of the testing event is so important.
That's why we have double blind testing.

West Marine, Sail, Yachting Monthly ought to take the responsibility and sponser tests of the EVOLVED ANCHORS (along with some of the usual suspects, of course) ON OTHER BOTTOMS. This ought to be done ASAP. Yachting Monthly could do the European cruising areas.

Using the word "evolving" by the advertising supported press is an acceptance of the inevitable. Kind of a declaration of merchandising war. Two or three things can happen. One, they can let this revelation die by forgetting the subject, and hope it all gets plowed under. Two, they can start making deals with the mutant anchor makers. Three, they can start patent-breaking modifications or have blatant copys made of competitor's "evolving" anchors.

If testing by the Big Boys using scientific and publically acceptable methodologies on other bottoms was done, they would show they really are putting the sailing public's safety foremost. Insurance companies and regulators are also looking on with interest , no doubt.

Seems it ultimately is to (nearly) everybody's benefit that the SERIES OF TESTS continues to go forward!;)

ebb

02-01-2007, 08:21 AM

Not quite necessary to beat this dead horse again.
The same players are out there - there is a new to me site that attempts to classify the new anchors. It's not a forum so we don't have Craig and Alaine in our face.
However the site is a British marine store that flogs the French anchors Spade and Sword. (That's an anomaly if there ever was one!) There are six or seven pages that try to develop a criteria for comparing anchors. I say 'try' because glaring assumptions are made (like about the shape of the fluke) that only thorough and well designed testing will prove. And conclusions are colored in that the writer features the Spade in his business, but the methodology is interesting and seems to have been written by a sailor. A good whack at comparing the new single-fluke quick setting anchors.

West Marine now carries the Manson Supreme. Seems that this decision was generated from the Santa Cruz 'tests' we talked about above. Don't know that Mocna got in, even tho they placed as well as the Supreme, if not better. Big companies hang together. The edge was probably due to Manson being able to produce product cheaper than the smaller maker. And remember the primary sponser for the recent tests was West Marine.

Manson Supreme is now being talked about on cruising forums, with some boats converting their primary anchor to the Supreme, demoting their bruce. Larger boats can carry more anchors. We're looking for the versatile multi-bottom anchor.
And we're still looking for more testing. Don't trust anybody's opinion on the shape and style, tip weight, fluke area, dry setting, etc when they are comparing the new anchors. It's all BS. It's not so much what is said but who is saying it!
http://www.bluewatersupplies.com/new_gen_anchors.htm
google> New Generation Anchors - Explained, Compared and Rated -

Interested in your accessment.:D

And buy a new anchor from an independant dealer (ANY independant dealer) like Azure Marine, ok?

commanderpete

02-01-2007, 11:38 AM

Somebody else will have to pick apart the comparison in that link. It does introduce another anchor--the Sword by Spade. However, it looks just like their Oceane anchor, which didn't do so well.

That guy Alain from Spade seems to be a very annoying character. Don't think I could buy anything associated with him.

The Manson Supreme 25 has jumped up in price to $235.

http://www.azuremarine.com/store/detail.asp?product_id=MAN:S25G

West Marine is charging $245 for the Manson. I guess you would save shipping costs

http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/producte/10001/-1/10001/256820/0/0/manson/All_2/mode+matchallpartial/0/0

Rocna has a distributor in Florida that is selling the Rocna 10kg for $329

http://storesense4.megawebservers.com/stores/a/anchorsource_net/cataloglist.html

The choice has now become more painful

craigsmith

02-01-2007, 04:17 PM

New Generation Anchors - Explained, Compared and Rated -

Interested in your accessment.:D
Here is our assessment. With tongue partly placed in cheek...
New Generation Anchors - Explained, Compared, and Rated (http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.php)

c_amos

02-01-2007, 04:35 PM

Here is our assessment. With tongue partly placed in cheek...
New Generation Anchors - Explained, Compared, and Rated (http://www.rocna.com/boat-anchors/new-gen-boat-anchors-explained.html)

I guess the Manson supreme was not represented since it is the same as the Rocna. :confused:

Just less expensive. :eek:

.... Thanks Craig :D :D

craigsmith

02-01-2007, 04:53 PM

Certainly, we do not consider cheap copies of other types, especially of our own - why would we provide such free exposure?

There are also copies of the Spade which could be included in that page, but why bother.

As commanderpete notes, the price difference now in the US is much reduced, and the discrepancy between the original Rocna and Manson Supreme anchor (http://www.rocna.com/boat-anchors/manson-supreme-anchor.html) now is truly a case of "you get what you pay for".

c_amos

02-01-2007, 04:59 PM

I like to give Craig Smith a hard time on various forums, mainly because he does such a great job of defending his Rocna anchor (I am sure it is a fine anchor). I personally might have bought one had it not been for the savings I had with my Manson Supreme (good anchor).

Anyways, Rocna has some pretty good info on their web site. Here is a table they posted;
http://www.rocna.com/images/remote/wind-forces-graph.jpg
What I noticed was the big difference required to hold a smaller boat.

Yet another metric by which the small boat wins. ;D

commanderpete

02-02-2007, 05:30 AM

Yeah, what's up with the Manson anchor?

There is simply no economic reason for the price to jump from $174 to $235 overnight.

Something more sinister is afoot.

West Marine wanted to carry the anchor.
West Marine wanted their usual obscene mark-up.
West Marine wouldn't allow their price to be undercut by the distributor.

Their usual Walmart tactics.

O.K. Craigsmith. $300 and we have a deal.

Final Offer

c_amos

02-10-2007, 06:20 PM

:p

Ok, I have not made any progress on my anchor roller in the last two weeks (I made the roller base, and faired it into the deck, re-non-skidded and painted the foredeck and then the wx got cold).

Of course the Manson will ride on the roller.

So, I decided to look for a replacement for the R.O.D. B. F.(Rusty old Danforth, Bent Fluke) that rides on the bow. I plan to keep it up there hanging off of the clips as a secondary anchor... so.

I like the Fortress anchors. I have used them on OPB's, and really like pulling them in. :) Oh yea, and the way they set and hold too... :D

So, I look at their chart... fx-7 lists 16-27' boats... (too small for me) so I go to the fx-11. That is better at 28-33' but then I look at the FX-16. The size is not much bigger then the R.O.D. and you could anchor a fleet of our boats on the thing.. :D

So then I look at the second R.O.D. I have on board. It is a smallish one that sits in the lazy-rat hatch on top of 75' of rode that I can literally toss overboard with one hand as a 'parking brake' (the anchor, not the rode.)

So I go ahead and bite the bullet and buy an FX-7 to replace the R.O.D......

:rolleyes:
SO, they arrive.

First, I am really impressed with the quality. I have looked and used others, but I am feeling pretty good about these.

So, I put the FX-7 together..... :o it 'seems' as big as the R.O.D.B.F. I have not yet tried but am thinking this think will not fit in my lazy-rat hatch without some twisting and turning... not too cool for the 'parking brake'. :(

Then I put the FX-16 together... again great quality. I will say 'great' anchor... even though I have not yet used it.

It is 'great' in that it looks like it belongs on the bow of the queen marry...

(ok, maybe not quite that big)
Thankfully it can be taken apart, and stowed below as a storm anchor.
On re-checking the measurements the FX-7 will fit on the bow as the replacement for the R.O.D. B. F. :cool:

So...
Fortress makes a less fancy version of their anchors called the 'guardian' series. They are not anodized, and they do not offer the adjustable fluke feature (for really soft mud). I looked at them, but decided against them as I noticed they seem to test lower too... can't really esplain that. :confused:

Buuuutttt...... there is a smaller guardian.. a 2.5# model that should fit in the lazy rat nicely.... ;D :D ;) :D ;D

.......please help me friends. ;D

http://sailfar.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10014/3anchors.jpg

ebb

04-20-2007, 07:40 AM

This tutorial:rolleyes: here has identified three basic styles of cruising (bow roller) anchors that might interest a small sailboat owner. The first I'd classify as old style:
Fisherman (kedge, Herreshoff)
Plough (CQR - rigid and articulated shank)
Danforth (swing shank, endless makers: Fortress)
I would describe these as dual fluke, including the plough which has the dualflukes welded together. The movable shanks are implicated in anchors breaking out of set when the wind changes.

Second classification is the new style anchor which is essentially a single fluke design. These anchors intend to be versatile, useful in diverse bottoms. Most have rigid shanks.
Claw (paw) (Bruce, SuperMax, Horizon and many others)
Spade (Delta style that usually have a narrow fluke of various shapes)
Spades with roll bars (Manson Supreme, Bugel, Sarca, and others)

And perhaps a third generation anchor that at first looks like most of the others but may almost be a breakthru design.
Ultra (a new Turk on the scene that describes itself as MIXED)
info@boyutmarine.com
www.quickline.us

It's stainless steel and in price far out of reach for most of us. Designer unknown at the moment. Obviously he saw a lot of StarTrek as the Ultra looks like a stealth Klingon Sportship. All kinds of angles. It does have the classic look of the 2nd classification anchors with very important differences.

It is unstable in any position except upright in the set or burying position. When you put it down it rights itself immediately. (This may not be the case ofcourse with a length of chain attached! But arguably it would want to be upright.))

It's sharp narrow tip is bent down. This creates an arc (as I've noted above with the Sarca) that can only make it quickly set itself - and with increased wind SET ITSELF DEEPER.
Imco this is of prime importance to a small cruiser with limited anchor choices and anchor weights on board.

The literature is the first I've noticed to advertise that it sets on inclined ("reversed") surfaces! The arched tip makes it a candidate for the boat's primary anchor, storm anchor.

On the bottom of the Ultra the tip is wedge-shaped because it is weighted - the bulk of the tip stops back at a designed point and gives the anchor a rocker that also gets it to tilt into its set.
(Ofcourse I don't know any of this for a fact!)

It is possible to imagine this anchor as not foulable by line or chain.
It is fabricated, they say, from 316L. The polished stainless and design is slippery and could only arrive clean back at the bow roller.

There is no way of knowing if this is a casting or is welded together. How it is made is of major importance to an exposed s.s. anchor in seawater environment.

The Ultra is sold by another new small company with a locker full of interesting inventions. The presentation is awkward and needs to be revised for the american market. The anchor will probably have to sell itself which will be difficult because of its price. It's unique properties are not evident in pictures.
And it has a rather tired name: Ultra... hmmmmm, yeah....so???

craigsmith

04-21-2007, 12:05 AM

And perhaps a third generation anchor that at first looks like most of the others but may almost be a breakthru design.
Ultra (a new Turk on the scene that describes itself as MIXED)
That's just a knock-off of the Spade...!

ebb

04-21-2007, 07:20 AM

Craigsmith,
What you say is meant to obscure rather than enlighten.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
As the son of the inventor and saleman of a commercial product,
what you say about a rival anchor is hardly impartial and
totally prejudiced. Therefor you can't be taken seriously when you attempt to put it down.

I can tell from your remark you have never seen the Ultra, or examined it.
You might learn something. If you are able to be objective.

Dare you to critique the actual anchor.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
The Rocna is a "knockoff" of a Spade with a hoop added. So what?

c_amos

11-02-2007, 06:21 PM

Rose, Peter and I rode out Hurricane Noel last night. The 25# Manson Supreme stayed put, no small feat considering that the bulk of it passed just to our East, with the radio saying that the winds were sustained 80 mph.

The 'rest of the story' is here. (http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php?topic=72)

The Manson was on 55' of 5/16ht in 6' of water. I put the Fortress FX-16 out as a second (in a differnt direction, only got the job at the end twords morning). I put this on the 50' of 1/4"ht I bought on the way down the coast. The problem came in when I tried to rig it.

What the heck do you secure 1/4" ht with????? I had a pair of 1/4" shackles (rated at like 500# wll) and several larger shackles that I had planned to use. I guess I it is obvious but nothging larger then the 1/4" would fit. Then only onto the end link.

I ended up putting a 3/8" shackle on the anchor, and running the chain through it, tieing a knot, and then bolting the chain back to it's self with 1/4" bolts (x3).

The other end I had to attach to the primary chain, I TIED the chain on with a couple of rolling hitches, and then used the (feeble) 1/4" shackle to the end and had to use another to attach it to the 5/16" ht.

I had picked up the 1/4"ht intending to replace the HEAVY 5/16" with it. I can not see any way to attach this chain to anything that does not look Rube G. :confused:

What am I missing?

Tim Mertinooke

11-05-2007, 04:29 PM

Glad to hear you made it through everything ok, it must have been stressful. That's pretty impressive that you held with 80mph winds without dragging. I think a key component that makes a HUGE difference in how an anchor performs is the chain. You are smart to have 50 feet of chain. It will dramatically improve the performance of any anchor. After my little anchor snafu where I had little, we put 50' of 5/16 on A-24. I'm convinced my actual anchor had very little stress throughout summer after that. My chain was usually straight down most of the time and I would ride around it like a mooring if the current shifted or if the winds were opposite the current. I'm sold after making the jump to that much chain. we are going all chain (200') for our new boat next summer. You pretty much make a mooring with that much chain, although getting it all back up might be a little bit of a chore, but we are looking at manual windlasses. It's Stress free anchoring in my mind with all chain, plus you eliminate chafing. When we went to the Ilses of Shoals last August in 50mph winds, Gosport Harbor was a trap with large swells and chop. We grabbed a mooring and rafted up with my parents. Once everything was secured and the boats were happy, I went out in the tender and set my 35# bruce with all of my chain in case the unknown mooring were to break. I have a friend who has done some extensive cruising in a Catalina 27 and he uses a sentinel to avoid carrying around the excess weight of the chain and he speaks highly of the setup.

ebb

11-05-2007, 05:37 PM

Craig,
You ALL survived and THAT's fantastic.
I do know that when we read the cruiser forums someone is always saying that when you order your chain have the factory put (weld) oversize links on BOTH ends!
Now we know why....

So that is a great question: what do normal sailors have to attach chain to an equally rated anchor shackle? It cannot be the weak point in the anchoring system. Your double wrap seems to have worked!!!

It must be worth finding out if they'll custom shorter lengths of chain at Acco, weld on the oversize links and galvanize it for you.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________
After going with a new design anchor, it has to be a great feeling that a TWENTYFIVE pounder holds an Ariel in a hurricane. What kind of bottom was it? Did the boat veer, that is, did the anchor turn in its buried position when the wind shifted? What Windline did you get for it, how do they like each other" Do you use the roller to anchor or transfer to a chock on the rail?:)
To 'Fair Winds and Following Seas' we should add 'Great Holding Bottoms'!

c_amos

01-12-2009, 10:43 PM

Been hearing rumors that Rocna has moved it's mfg to China. Yes, Chinese Rocna's.....

Fellow at CF just verified it. GMac is a well known ground tackle retailer in NZ (?) He posts at CF and SSCA. Here is a link (http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=243351&postcount=27) to the skinny.

ebb

01-13-2009, 01:48 PM

THIS SHOULD BE A CONTINUATION OF THE "NEW GENERATION ANCHOR" thread.

Manson Supreme seems to have caught on. A lot of cruisers on the net talk about them and carry them. Some say the MS has become their primary anchor.
That Mocna bested them in the last big WM/Sail/YachtingMonthly mag test might be due to the luck of the roll.
OR, as I surmised and wrote to Manson about it might be due to the rollbar gussets that secure the rollbar to the blade on the bottom acting like a brake.

Both anchor makers twaddle about how these gussets help tilt the anchor into the bottom but there isn't a shred of actual evidence that this is the case.
I think that in hard sand the gussets and the rollbar ends may prevent the blade from taking a deep set. A computer model might be designed to explore this.
I think the Manson Supreme would benefit in deep setting if it had a smooth bottom (aside from the welded reinforcement of the spearpoint) - so that once set it would keep cutting cleanly into the bottom.
If Manson upset the gussets and put them on top then Mocna couldn't compare themselves to the better anchor as they constantly do.

[Practical Sailor reported on heavyweight Manson/Mocna galvanized anchor testing on a Chilean beach in their November08 issue. There were two Mansons: one the Supreme and the other a Ray which is a welded copy of the original cast Bruce, no longer made. In this report the stainless steel Ray with its three points catches the slope better to penetrate the stoney covered hard sand beach. But that is what it is. The anchors are pulled by winch from a boat. Something wrong here. Reminds me of the first PS sandy beach tests that pulled anchors with an SUV from a parking lot.*

IT IS PLAIN TO SEE that the strangely unimportant little gusset feet on both the Mocna and Supreme had no effect on getting them to START a set on the DOWN SLOPE when hauled by the boat winch. The close-up photos from behind show how similar the back ends of the two anchors are. Couple of robot turtles.
What this test is supposed to decide is beyond comprehension. The Ray was more prone to dig in while being dragged because it would flop over and penetrate one of its three points. Actually it IS the star of the 'test' because of this point - but mostly because it was shinier and more bling.
The beach test proves NOTHING relative to a 35' and under cruiser anchoring in 35' of water.
Practical Sailor should be banned from "testing anchors."]

In water with scope out, it's pretty obvious that a 125# Manson Supreme will set quicker than a 25#.

I feel we small boats have different issues. We can't depend on anchor weight to gain a decent set. We don't usually anchor on dry stoney beaches.
We have to ask more versatility of a new-age anchor because we cannot carry a whole range of anchors to match all bottoms.

I hope somebody is keeping score on what bottoms the Manson Supreme has difficulty with.

Some cruisers are upset by the long shackle slider of the MS and think it weakens the shank. Never proven, never an issue. Even in coral (shouldn't be anchoring here) where an anchor can get lodged it seems stupid to rig a shackle to the slider. The anchor does need a hole for a shackle in the center of the rear of the blade OR a loop low down on the back of the shank for a traditional trip line. Should have either one to be right. The slide is at best whimsical, can't imagine a cruiser ever using it, and there are no videos that show it actually working. It may turn out that he MS could be improved with its cylinder section blade cut with a curve to its rear for a little more surface area.

The MS will be Little Gull's main anchor as we learn more about it.

At this moment (01/09) Azure Marine sells the 25# galv MS for $248 (S&H xtra)
WestMarine sells the Mocna 25# for "Only $799" **
[WM - galv MS 25# "Only $299.99"]. Under $300!
__________________________________________________ _____________
** not once in advertising these anchors does WM mention that these anchors are galvanised. They say only 'steel'. Not stainless steel - which a 25# anchor for $799 certainly ought to be.

commanderpete

01-14-2009, 06:17 AM

Does the Manson Supreme fit through the cockpit locker hatch?

Here is another anchor that's starting to get some buzz---the Raya from Brazil

http://www.ancoralatina.com/acolhimento/ingles/Home%20page.html

Commander 147

01-14-2009, 06:41 AM

I have found this anchor (it is called a Hydro-Bubble) works significantly better than any other anchor I have ever used. It has been for some time my primary anchor. Unfortunately the company went out of business about a year ago. I spoke to the owner and the anchors were made here in the USA and he could not compete with similar style anchors on price. At the time stainless prices were going through the roof. The white bubble on top is a float that makes the anchor land in the correct orientation every time. After 3 years of using this anchor I have only once had it not set the first time. If you see one for sale used it is worth a try IMHO.

c_amos

01-14-2009, 08:12 AM

Does the Manson Supreme fit through the cockpit locker hatch?

Yup.

I kept mine there for several months before I had completed my bow roller installation.

ebb

01-14-2009, 09:03 AM

C'Pete,
The 25# MS is 14" wide, 25" long and about 12.5" tall (that is: measuring the anchor sitting at rest on its blade from the point to the top of the shank above it) - if you were going to put it in a box. Proportionately short and stubby (compared to a CQR) and some have complained that it is too willing a self launcher as it must be tamed immediately when on board in the roller with a chain hook.
Don't know what roller is best for the bow for the MS. I suspect it is one that has the roller below the channel. The MS shank is straight once it makes its turn off the blade. The RAYA mentioned below has a radiused shank and may not house well in the usual Windline/Kingston channel-rollers.

By and large new age single fluke anchors are handsome. And mean looking. right?
I like the MS for its clean curves, the blade especially and the sweep of its shank. I think it compliments the rounded forms of the Ariel/Commander - almost as if Alberg had a hand in the hook's design.

C'willbe, The Hydro Bubble got good reviews in the WM/Sail mag trials. But in the 2001 Practical PowerBoat trials it never set. I think it has too gimmicky a look for buyers. "Plastic ON the anchor, NO way!" While keeping the anchor in the correct attitude for setting some thought it took away from anchor weight.

I like the idea that an anchor can deep set if necessary. I would think the float on the Hydro would work against that. imco.
The hoops on the back of the MS and Mocna might PREVENT deep setting.
DEEP SET, imco, is when the anchor becomes completely buried - stays in the bottom when the pull changes 90 or 180 dgrees. If an anchor doesn't bury then it must immediately reset when pulled out.

Also as time goes on we'll see two definite camps emerge on what a newage anchor should look like. One likes the single blade to be humped up or convex or plow - the other likes 'em to be concave, scoop or spoon shaped. One of the Herreshoffs said of the CQR when he saw it that it belonged behind a horse not off the bow of a boat. He saw immediately that it couldn't set properly. What's in a name?
One rube on the SSCA forum has taken Manson to task for selling CQR copies to unsuspecting southern hemisphere yachtsmen.

I'm in the scoop camp with a high prejudice against spoon anchors - until proven otherwise. But I also feel that the new age anchors are still in their developmental stage.

The RAYA anchors are interesting. (One interesting thing is that it looks at lot like the French Spade's SWORD anchor.) The designer has copied the rounded back of the blade I would guess is meant to help roll it into dive position. Rather than adding a hoop. In loose mud all the anchors here will have problems getting orientated in the right attitude (except maybe the HydroBubble). The RAYA looks like it could have the same problem. The blade shape appeals to me - it is said to be based on a cone rather than a cylinder that the MS has. It does look like it wants to be pulled into the bottom. It maybe be difficult for RAYA to penetrate weed. Need more tests, videos, etc.
According to RAYA litereature the loop in the back of the shaft is not for a trip line but to act as a step to get aboard your yacht when the RAYA is housed on its roller.:rolleyes:
Holding resistance is based on blade surface area. Along with a bunch of other factors of course. Blade shape, shank strength, balance, weight, how it behaves in divers bottoms, reset after direction of pull change and more.

While comparison testing seems flawed to me,
the more we have of it the better.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
PS: And it's useful to know that 100# Supremos and 100# Mocnas won't dig in on a dry downsloped hard sand beach covered with ball bearings, yes it is.

ebb

01-22-2009, 01:30 PM

Bent Manson Supreme - Cruisers & Sailing forums [google]
www.cruisersforum.com/forum/f118/bent-manson-supreme-22270.html-100k
(address as it appears)

Four pages of recent posts revolving mostly around the MS and Mocna.

Very interesting: the series unfolds with many posts, including our own svFaith, discussing the sorry looking bent Supreme off a rental boat,
and ends with a marvelous O'Henry twist.
You gotta follow this story-like thread to the end.

Turns out:
Mocna, the business, has been sold.
The new owner it seems is having Mocnas made in China.
That means, if we can believe anything we read on the net,
that means that Mocna Craig will probably no longer be visiting our forums.:D

So there goes ALL the hype of superior materials, superior manufacturing specs, superior manufacturing and superior design. There goes Craig's whacky reverse sales psychology of comparing his dad's not quite so holy anchor to a major anchor manufacturer's own samilar but very different design (Manson Supreme.)

I've made my last visit to Mocna's flawed internet site,
if just to see if they had substantiated their claims more honestly.
The video on the Mocna site was pivotal in my going with the Manson Supreme!
[Shoot yerself in the foot sales psychology:rolleyes:]
The site is unchanged.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________

In the above thread one cruiser asks
how would you sleep if you knew your anchor was made in China?

IMCO

ebb

02-02-2009, 07:43 PM

My MS 25 would look just right with a 1/2" shackle. Can slip the bow ends thru the shackle slot.
A 1/2" shackle's pin is more than 5/8s of an inch. That's comforting. But no way can I slip that pin into a 1/4" chain link.
I'd be happy with a 1/2" shackle on the end of an anchor that will hold at least two tons of pull before breaking out - and sometimes more.

Figure the chain should match that. Close anyway.
1/4" ProofCoil/P30 rates at 1300lbs Working Load Limit.
1/4" High Test/P43 rates at 2600lbs WLL....................
1/4" Transport/P70 rates at 3150 WLL. ....getting up there.
(BUT WLL for galv transport is 2677.5 at 15% loss rate. )
Weight per 100 feet is 65# each grade.

1/4" S.S. welded chain WLL is 1570#. Not made in the USA.
That's about it for chain grades readily available except for BBB.
BBB has same specs but slightly shorter links. Lengths probably weigh a bit more than standard link.

For a cruising Ariel an all chain rode would probably be prudent.
I can see 300' as a minimum for a single length. That's 195# plus connectors.
A 30' leader is 19.5#. Around 225# min.

Same in 5/16" = 285# or 315# total. Transport in this size is even heavier BUT the WL in ungalvanized link is 4700#.
Galvanizing G70 costs about 15% in WL strength
bringing 5/16" down to 4000# WLL and G70 1/4" galv to 2677.5 WLL.

I'm not willing to carry 5/16" chain's extra 100# up in the bow. Big boat cruisers like big link galvanized G70. You gotta admit that High Test compares very well.
[One important thing here. G70 transport is heat treated link. This heat treated chain is compromised each time you galvanize - including the first time. Transport chain for truckers is sold plain black. When you go with galvanized transport G70 you probably won't choose to regalvanize later on. It already has lost 10 to 20% of its original tensile strength. The right word for this type of chain is HIGH TENSILE. High tensile steel cannot be reheated as with galvanizing without loss of strength. It seems no problem with G30 or G43 High Test to be regalvanized. A knowlegable galvanizer could reharden G70 chain but they either don't exist or the process for the owner is too expensive - and/or would you trust them?]

Working Load Limit is calculated to be about one quarter of Breaking Strength. Therefor X4 the WLLs above for that figure.

SHACKLES ON STEROIDS
The galvanized Crosby alloy 1/2" shackle I mentioned above has a WL Limit of 3.3Tons!!!
It's probably also high tensile steel.
Regular shackles don't cut the mustard in this league.
CROSBY ALLOY shackles rate twice the WL of ordinary ones - which Crosby also makes.
A regular 3/8" shackle WLL is 2000#, 1Ton. A 3/8" ALLOY shackle rates at 2Tons - 4000# WLL. Pretty amazing. Its pin WILL go thru the 1/4" chain link (of all 3 grades.) BUT it looks mighty teensey on the end of my 25MS. Could say it matches the chain on looks. BUT not the anchor. The 3/8" size looks ridiculous to me, no matter how 'rated'.

You can buy 1/4" galvanized transport chain from WM for about $4.50 a foot.
WM can't call it G70 - because it isn't... once its been galvanized! And you have no option for a larger welded link for a larger shackle for your honkin Supremo. Next shackle size up: the 7/16" shackle pin is just a couple mm too large to pass thru the link. That shackle is rated at 2.5 tons WL. So we're stuck with the teensey 3/8s.
But it looks like the 3/8" ALLOY will be adequate for the job.

And there are no other connectors for chain to anchor that rate anywhere near the breakout numbers of the Supreme and the WLL of High Test. The anchor shackle is usually the weakest link. Others choices are half or less the chain or totally unrated galv swivels, lap links and split links, all suspect.
Swivels sometimes have a mix of metals.

Rated forged alloy shackles have embossed around their bow:
the Working Load Limit,
the maker's name (in this case Crosby),
the size in a fraction: 3/8. 7/16. 1/2,
the capital letter 'A',
and the number 51 with the letter I or C.
The reverse side of the shackle says USA.
These all have that screw pin with the huge eye and large hole a marlinspike can fit into that can be easily wired but often is a problem passing through anchor rollers.
The alloy pins should also have ID numbers and stamped letters. They are matched to the alloy shackle - can't change them out with other shackles.
Every shackle should have embossed WLL on the bow.

Any unmarked galvanized shackle should be in your next garage sale.
Never use made in China shackles for anything. Except garage sales.

Hope this is helpful - imco, as always.

ebb

02-03-2009, 09:13 AM

If you have a 35# MS, the correct chain for that is probably 5/16".
For general anchoring by a 26' 5250# A/C we agree that a 25# MS is good.
Certainly for the weight issue 1/4" chain is probably most likely heavy and strong enough.

Galvanized Transport chain for anchoring has its detractors. Some feel it is too brittle and can snap under load. Also some say that hot zinc does not amalgamate well with high tensile steel. I have seen no proof or photos. Stainless steel link has similar prejudice: its WLL for 1/4" is 2000# - but sometimes as low as 1570# WLL - significantly lower than High Test at 2600# WLL*. See in January SAIL mag a photo of s.s. links that have gone through a storm that have separated at the weld. No provenance on who made the chain or when.
It is said of the lower two grades of chain, G30 and G43, that they will show wear and rust before they will break.

You see 10%, 15%, 20% used to figure WLL loss to high tensile G70 transport chain when it is galvanized. G70 1/4" link has a WLL of 3150# befor galvanizing, the resulting WLL after galv. is 2835, 2677.5, 2520. It is said that each time transport is galvanized the %loss continues. You choose the percentage!

The WLL for 1/4" G43 (also P43) 'High Test' is listed as 2600#

Of the three (Proof Coil P30 - High Test P43 - Transport P70)
High Test looks like the right choice, doesn't it? It can be regalvanized without penalty.
It isn't finicky, don't have to remember that it's different from all your other chain pieces, probably won't break a link, it's just..... the better regular chain.

Whatever the choice, if we go with a larger link for a larger shackle, here's what the specs say:
Inside width of 1/4# link ranges from .48 to .41 - whatever grade.
The largest size link that will fit is 3/8" link at .392".
Its inside width is .551".
A 2500# WLL regular 7/16" shackle or a 5240# WLL 7/16" Alloy shackle has a .5" pin - and supposedly will pass through a 3/8" galv link.
[My preferred 1/2" shackle has a pin that is at least .625". The only way to use that is to add another even larger link to the 3/8" link. Conceivably a 1/2" link which will pass a 5/8" pin - it's the next size up and the only choice. Don't know about that.]

Anyway it does seem that if you order your 1/4" chain with 3/8" end link you can easily match WLLs.
It has been pointed out that having a large link at both ends will allow you to reverse the chain.
imco
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
*BUT to go with 316 stainless steel chain there is a bunch of pretty and innovative s.s. chain-to-anchor connectors like hammerlocks, toggles and swivels - which you shouldn't use with a galvanized chain and anchor.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
ACCO chain is the most available and is sold by every marine catalog I'm aware of. Peerless Industrial Group (PEERLESS CHAIN) acquired Acco in 2006.
They had already acquired a chain importer WEISSENFELS USA in 2004. Weissenfels is a well known German marine chain manufacturer.. The specs for chain have some variances. I have used the Peerless Charts. You can find an informative site for W. on the net with lots of info on chain.

This may be interesting:
Here's are a few sentences on Hot Dipped Galvanizing that I hadn't heard. You can find the entire page on the WEISSENFELS USA INC. net site.
"When zinc is coupled to steel, the steel is polarized to such a potential that it becomes the cathode of the steel-zinc couple and is immune to further corrosion for the life of the zinc. In practice this means that STEEL EXPOSED AT A COATING DEFECT OR CUT EDGE WILL NOT RUST until the nearby zinc is consumed.
The finished product consists of 4 layers: the outer is free zinc, and the 3 inner layers are separate intermetallic layers that are METALLURGICALLY bonded to each other and the steel. The zinc is INTEGRAL with the steel and there is no real line of demarcation between iron and zinc, but a gradual transition through the series...."

c_amos

02-03-2009, 09:19 AM

Ebb,

As usual, excellent analysis. Just to break it down for any who missed it;

it does seem that if you order your 1/4" chain with 3/8" end link you can easily match the WLLs

IMHO

Without the oversized link, 1/4" chain of any variety is pretty much useless accept as a border around your petunias. There is no known shackle that will fasten 1/4" chain to anything that needs chain.

ebb

02-07-2009, 07:32 AM

Hey Craig,
thanks,

That's right,
EXCEPT for that little Crosby ALLOY 3/8" shackle.*
At least the specs say you can make the connection from your 1/4" anchor chain to the petunia bed
without creating a weak link. And without an oversize link.
Mean to say that the 3/8" shackle pin does pass thru 1/4" galv link.
Have to trust Crosby that the WLL is what is embossed on the shackle.;)

C.G.Edwards & Co.Inc, Boston
is a source for these.

The specs above also suggest that if you do have a factory welded 3/8" oversize link on your 1/4" chain, you will be able to use a regular rated 7/16" USA galv shackle to connect....and be within a SUPPOSED consistant WLL within your anchor system.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
* There are other manufacturers of these double WLL shackles.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
WHAT STRIKES ME ABOUT THIS IS THAT NO ANCHOR MANUFACTURER OR CATALOGER MAKES ANY EFFORT OR RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE THIS VITAL CONNECTOR (FROM ANCHOR TO CHAIN) AVAILABLE.
Imco this missing connector should be supplied by the manufacturer with the anchor when purchased. It should be part of the anchor.
Rather than off the shelf shackles, a specific super shackle for anchor/chain connections could be designed - for both galv anchors and s.s. anchors - for anchor rollers and channel that most anchors are pulled up into and launched from........ How about a forged galv double-jaw toggle with clevis pins......?*
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
What we have is a link that can wander the length, short as it is, of the pin. There is a photo of a contorted and parallelogramed s.s. swivel on the net where you can easily see that the link went to one side of the pin against the cheek of the bow ..... and the swivel was then stretched from the 'corners' which also bent the bolt that formed the swivel function. It wasn't broke, but.....
The forces that bent the fitting might have bent any fitting but point is the link was not fair on the pin. Could say the pin was not short enough for the link. The only way we can use an off-the-shelf shackle is to pass the pin through the link.
Therefor we do want a shackle designed specially for a single link.
Logical. But what am I missing here?:confused:
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
*
http://www.spade-anchor.co.uk/Chain%20Connectionjpg
Sorry, doesn't come through. Close up of toggle and clevis pin connection chain to anchor. Nice and tidy. Toggle is s.s. - galv. chain link not only shows rust but a diminishing of the steel link. Text book on why s.s. and galv. are a bad combo.

ebb

02-12-2009, 11:36 AM

ANYBODY HERE HAVE AN OPINION.....?
The use of a swivel in our anchoring system is controversial.
Anchoring out where wind and tides cycle there may be a good reason to try to keep your chain from getting knotted,
which could conceivably get it broke.
Or merely keep it un twisted so it hauls in fair to the windlass.
All cruisers think a swivel is the weakest 'link' in their anchoring gear.

There seems to be an even number of swivels, galvanized and stainless, on the market. Defender has 4 pages.
Every one depends on a center bolt-like affair to do the turning. Nearly every swivel has its bolt unprotected from bending. Some seem to be designed intentionally to make sure the bolt gets bent by having the parts cut away where they meet so that any bending force is unopposed.

Acco Chain makes a swivel for 1/4" and 5/16" link. It is a galvanized fitting.
Being made by a dependable chain maker is as good as provenance gets for a connector. (They DO make regular shackles.)
This fitting looks like siamese twin shackles joined bow to bow - back to back.
However, the join is a rather wide double flange through which a very short stout bolt passes - with a humongous nut and washer holding the twins together.

Don't believe the bolt can't bend the way this "Anchor Chain Rode Swivel" is designed.
The bows come close together to what a normal 3/8" shackle would have with the usual screw pin with enormous eye in each. (Don't have the swivel to measure.) Therefor the strain would ALWAYS go through the center line of the fitting.
This fitting is entirely unique. It looks forged. It looks right, it doesn't have any glaring design flaw, it looks ugly but practical. Whether ANY swivel actually swivels is open to debate. And those nasty projecting pin-heads need fixing.

The Acco ACR Swivel is DESIGNED TO GO WITH 1/4"/5/16" G43 HIGH TEST ACCO CHAIN. That's what the vendors say.

Does it have a WLL of 3900#? Have not been able to verify this number.
The swivel sells at WM (always first on the google list) for $51.99. You see others selling it as high as $83!
At Defender it's $39.19.
imco

c_amos

02-12-2009, 05:24 PM

Hey Ebb,

As usual, I have an opinion (yea, what else is new).

I see the swivel as a necessary evil. I do not trust them, and feel they are all a bit shifty.

I especally do not like the kind that have a pin. I think this is were they are most prone to fail. If you have the chain - to a shakle (Crosby, largest that will fit chain) -to the swivel (largest WM stocks 5/8"IIRC) to a shakle (largest that would fit the Manson's shank).

With this arrangement I see no way lateral stress can be applied to the bolt that runs through the middle of the swivel. If the swivel has a pin, and can be attached directly to the anchor, then I see the lateral load working to bend the bolt and break the swivel.

In case this description does not make sence, I will go look for some pictures.

c_amos

02-12-2009, 05:40 PM

IMHO;

These are bad.

This kind is bad;http://www.jamestowndistributors.com/userportal/woeimages/00001749.jpg

http://www.marine-products.com/resize?src=/images/products/f-swivel.jpg&w=300

This kind is really bad;

http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/yhst-17525248830734_2042_2812776

THis kind would be even worse;

http://shop.sailboatowners.com/emp/images/productsm/824.jpg

This is the kind I prefer;
http://www.go2marine.com/go2_structure/2/4/0/5/24055F-p.jpg

It was a 5/8" from Fawcett IIRC.

ebb

02-13-2009, 12:01 AM

Yep, Craig, the one you say,
this kind would be even WORSE
is the s.s. (probably Suncor, 3/8"-154o#WLL) 'parallel-o-grammed' one mentioned earlier. Here's a pic.
The chain link obviously slid to one side of the shackle, and the anchor took to the other side of the other pin.
Whatever force it was (probably the windlass) transformed a lousy design into a menace.*

None of the others in your 'most avoided' gallery is worth a damn either imco.
But.....

Check out the chain-maker's swivel:
Acco Anchor Chain Rode Swivel - 3900#. (not yet verified.)
If this is the real WLL (see below) the BREAKING load would be in the neighborhood of SIX TONS!)
Take a look at the image at the bottom of this post and COMPARE it to Craig's mug shots.

6 tons breaking load:
In theory almost THREE ARIELS together could be dangled from this fitting.

I've ordered one.
Like you say,
it's a necessary ugly.:rolleyes:
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
*
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/FreddyD/268a3d53.jpg
Could be this cripple is a Seadog product. Jamestown is unloading them for $8 to $23.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
TOO TRUE TO BE GOOD?
It's easy enough to get on the Peerless/Acco site where you can preview a download of Acco marine chain and accessories catalog. The "Anchor Rode Swivel" #440640011 on pg 19 clearly states the WLL for this fitting is 1500# WLL.

CLEARLY STATES THE WORKING LOAD LIMIT FOR THEIR FITTING IS 1500# WLL.
West Marine clearly states: 3900lbs SW.
SW?...................semi wood.

....So I called Peerless - and the rep she has not phoned back. I will try to get to the bottom of this! Need to get them live, they never call back.
Every online seller uses almost the same description BUT lists the SW as 3900# (except Defender: 3000#, which must be a misprint).

Assume SW means Safe Working in consumer-eeze. Have no idea what it means.
SWL is an OBSOLETE term using the word 'safe'. Lawyers liked it too much, so the industry changed it to WLL - now embossed on steel everywhere.

I'm feeling really pissed at these shills.
If they have invented a sleeze term to inflate the real and much less WLL, that's DECEPTION.
Who do I believe: the Peerless Acco Catalog OR the vendors?

It's as crooked as that stainless spaghetti shackle. What does this 3900 number really mean? Why are all the vendors using this apparent misrepresentation?
In the vendors' brief descriptions, the 3900# number is nowhere tagged with a WLL.
Here's how Defender puts it:
"...engineered to meet the workload of acco 1/4 and 5/16 grade high test chain (3000lbs)." [sic]
That's patent BS.
Acco's Working Load Limit for 1/4" G43 High Test is: 2600lbs. For 5/16" it's 3900lbs.
So we know where the number comes from. BUT it relates to chain not the swivel.
imco

Found 8 or 9 onlines selling the same swivel for $85.91 ranging down to $33.99.
Here's an attempt to access an image:
http://www.keenzo.com/zoom.asp?zoom=3182175
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________
High test don't see no stinkin WLLs on that Acco Swivel either!

ebb

02-18-2009, 10:07 AM

Just talked with a rep at Peerless Chain.
The swivel is rated differently than chain.
Chain you can multiply the Working Load Limit by 4 to get the Breaking Load Limit. Sometimes written as Breaking Strength or BS.
With the Acco Chain Rode Swivel your mutiplyer is 8 times the WLL.
Therefor the 1500# WLL on the swivel (as stated in the catalog) has a 12,000 # Breaking Limit.
Peerless is a member of the NACM which sets chain standards and one assumes the chain rode swivel standards as well.

OK?
That's what I was told.
I'm not going to seriously pursue this any longer.

Taking a look at the Acco swivel I see that the bolt is protected from bending. The two pieces (call em shackles) cannot be pulled in any direction but straight on.
Of all the galvanized swivels this is the ONLY design that protects the bolt from bending.
There is of course some Murphy method the bolt could be stressed - but until somebody posts a spaghetti version of a compromised Acco Swivel fitting I'm convinced.

I like the convenience of having the pins available at the business ends of the fitting. It is possible that a chain link could seat on one side of the pin and the anchor seat on the opposite side. But it is imco unlikely to end up like the suncor/seadog swivel. Imco there is too little available space on the pin for the link or the anchor to take an offcenter position.

If I was going to worry about the pull on the swivel not being strate with the center bolt
I'd make up some polyethylene washers to use to center the chain. The stuff comes in many thicknesses, it's cheap, and easy to drill and shape. [Holesaw would do it!]

That's it on this.
Craig, what do you think? Is the Acco at least interesting?:cool:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Don't trust me. I don't trust me, it's easy to get things wrong, or hear what you want to hear, you know.
Peerless Industrial Group - 1416 East Sanborn Street - Winona, MN 55987.
1-800-873-1916. Their Contact page invites us to get in touch.
I've called maybe 4 times, each time got a pleasant response and a shunt to the marine division, a message machine, and never got a call back from Donna. The last guy who picked up was obviously knowledgable, he was the one who clued me on the different WLLs of chain and the fitting,
WE SHOULD HAVE A CONFIRMATION ON THIS NUMBER (1500#WLL) FOR THIS SWIVEL. Actually I would like to see this in print. We want to know how, when, why, and where we can disregard this fitting's WLL. and just tune it up to 3900#WLL because it's important to..... I'd trust the source over the vendor anyday!
anybody?

c_amos

02-18-2009, 10:53 AM

Craig, what do you think? Is the Acco at least interesting?:cool:

I like the numbers you are getting on the Acco swivel, and I like the way the bolt is protected. I do not like the 'dual fork' version though, maybe a single fork, with a loop in the other end... ?

The issue as I see it with the 'fork' design is that if the load is anything other then directly in line if you have the fork attached to the shank of the anchor you are going to apply some crazy side loads. These loads would not only be applied to the bolt, but to the forks. I see lots of failure points in that set up.

The fork end attached to the chain would not be a problem (IMHO) since it is free to pivot on all axies. The fork end attached to the shank of the anchor (lets say you are pulling on an anchor 30degrees off of the direction it was set.). Your trying to collapse the parallelagram you have in the fork and pin of the swivel.

Is that clear as mud?

ebb

02-18-2009, 01:28 PM

Totally clear, Craig,
I see what you mean.
Some of the fancy and useless (so far as I don't know) stainless swivels also come with an added knuckle because this is recognized as a big problem.
But even a simple toggle action could run afoul of the positions an anchor shank might take.

The Acco swivel is only made in that one model (pins on the ends) and in only that size.
(The rep said they made a larger size but it didn't sell.)
If more people saw it as a solution ther might be a bow ended model.

But you have to admit the pins on that swivel are pretty close and tight and will keep what is connected to it
in the middle of the fitting and in line with the swivel BOLT.

So, how about this compromise?
A 7/16" (with a 1/2" pin) anchor shackle will fit perfectly on our 25# Supreme.
You can put the bow through....
or attach the shackle to the anchor with the pin.
That's the way I'd suggest. It makes a simple hinge action.
[And that slot has been punched thru and left with sharp edges by Manson.
Better not to have a shackle bow hinge on that. I think the pin is OK there.]

Then you attach the Acco swivel to the bow of that shackle.
That would add almost a universal joint action - not quite, but huge more attitude.

I know, I know, they will say you are adding another possible fail point, another unknown, another questionable connection.
That 7/16" Crosby ALLOY anchor shackle is rated at 2.6Tons or 5200#WLL.
A miserable 20,800# breaking strength. Wire the pin.

The Acco would be attached to the BOW of that shackle. Wire the pins.
And that would make it more free to move in whatever unexpected direction the chain is pulling at the anchor. YES?

And don't forget you have some swiveling goin on there too.
Won't it work???
Can't see it binding.

Whatever has to be threaded on any shackle pin can be positively centered on the pin with those homemade polyethylene washers. Or something else.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
What are facts but compromises?
A fact merely marks the point where we have agreed to let investigation cease. (Bliss Carman)

c_amos

02-18-2009, 08:46 PM

By Jove I think you have got it!

Yes, Ebb I think you have got the answer there. I like the shakle pin to the anchor (whatever is the biggest that will fit... 7/16" sounds right. Pin one end of the swivel to the shackle, and in my mind you have achieved the stress relief for the fork/pin on the swivel. Yes, you are right, there is another failure point but in my current system there are 2 shakles and a swivel so I only have one less pin.... and all to use a weaker swivel then your arrangement.

I will look for one of those swivels myself..

Yes! Oh Yes! the seizing wire is a MUST. the more the better (within reason.. unlike the rest of the rode.) :p

Tim D.

02-18-2009, 08:59 PM

;) I had to order some pieces for my propane locker installation from Defender, so I had them throw in an Acco swivel.:D

Tim D.

02-22-2009, 07:30 AM

received my order from Defender, and I am impressed with the swivel unfortunately I pulled an Ebb ;) and forgot to take a picture before taking it out to the boat and this pic does not do it justice, it is LARGE.

http://images.westmarine.com/thumb/155783.jpg

ebb

02-23-2009, 08:58 AM

The problem is those old fashioned pin heads.
Obviously you can use a big marlin spike in the big eye to get big purchase to untighten the pin.
[Might be good to use some Lanocote when assembling.
I'd grease the center bolt, too.]

Have some old chain shackles ('D' shackles) whose pins, instead of a squid eye, have a simple 90 degree half circle protrusion that has a small hole in it for wiring. Doesn't stick out of the side much at all. Maybe unscrewing it would be a problem because there isn't much to grab on to even with a visegrip. Looks good though!
Believe that screwpins are 100% more safe than loose clevis pins. It's the kind of redundancy I want with chain and anchor.

The Peerless Chain guy on the phone suffered me as gladly as he could but didn't think there were any other pins available for the Acco fitting. Yet I'm pretty sure it's not the first time someone has complained about the lopsided inconvenience of that style screwpin. Those shacklepins are holdovers from the square-rigger days imco.

On some of those sleek but weak stainless fittings they put a pin in place with a hex socket. Nothing sticks out.

If galvanized shackles like primates followed some 'natural selection'
they would progress to a square socket headed screwpin (rather than the usual hex)
The heads would stick out a little from the body of the shackle
and have one or two holes thru the rim of the 'cup', let's call it, where 4 or 5 turns of keeper wire could be passed.
We'd use a socket wrench tool's 1/4" drive to turn the pinhead.

The Acco Chain Rode Swivel, as it is, IS a rather ungainly fitting that could be made more convenient and efficient if the pins were redesigned with modern anchor rollers and channel in mind. Might even look shipshape!

And those double WLL Alloy anchor shackles should have the same nice tidy pins as well.
imco

ebb

02-26-2009, 11:35 AM

Paint-on cold galvanizing does not have a good rep.
BUT this compound may be just the long lasting product we've been looking for to use on anchors and fittings. (They say) it is equivalent to hot dip!
Chain and large rusty steel has to be sandblasted
or cooked in acid baths at the galvanizers.

BUT if the part is irreplaceable and attached to the boat, hand sanding/grinding to base metal* and then applying this stuff may be just thing to erase a rust problem.
They say it is equal to hot dip.

It is 95% zinc. The literature says the zinc is pure - not gathered from recycling.
The 'secret binder' is epoxy based and doesn't encapsulate the zinc particles.
The zinc is able to make the necessary electrochemical bond with steel.

www.zrcworldwide.com

I had a friendly and helpful exchange of emails with Lorraine Dewald from their plant in MA. ZRC is not available retail.
She gave me a wholesale distributor's San Francisco phone who was happy to sell me a quart for around $37 ( published price) plus UPS. The stuff is non-haz-mat.
It comes in other forms including a non-clogging aerosol version. Remember, these films will not work over rust. Rust has to be removed.*
This source did not have the 1/2 pint cans I would have prefered.
One assumes cans will sit around for long periods and small ones would be more convenient.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
Quart can arrived - weighs 6#! Altho I was told the material was thick, when the can was opened and stirred up it really isn't any different than a heavy paint. The metal was not compacted in the bottom, easy to mix into the liquid. It won't need to be thinned. While the binder is said to be epoxy there is no catalyst to add. Straight out of the can like paint.
It's dark gray like old galvanizing. They make a shiny new look ZRC also.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
*Phosphoric Acid (Naval Jelly) the gel removes rust easily- but slowly. Does a good job getting rust out of small pits and cracks. Anchors, anchor fittings and tools. Excellent for small jobs, that frozen brown crescent wrench, maybe even short pieces of chain. Rinses with water.
For ZRC to do its thing it must have clean bare metal - but cosmetically I'm sure it paints over any existing hot dip just fine.
Boshield Rust Free comes in an 8oz pump bottle spray. A phosphoric acid and alcohol mix - it's a water like consistency. Said to work fast and remove rust and rust stain from nearly anything: cloth (sails?), vinyl, fiberglass, chrome, s.s. and steels. Maybe it'll work on the anchor gear. Soap and water.
Haven't tried it yet.
imco

ebb

03-09-2009, 10:09 AM

Won't bore you with the text.

On my desk here, side by side, I have an Acco Chain rode Swivel and a Crosby alloy anchor shackle - 3/8" 2ton WLL. The swivel pins measure 23/64"D - under 3/8"s. The alloy shackle pin measures just under 7/16"D.
This 3/8" shackle pin fits 1/4" galv. chain link PERFECTLY.

[LATER POSTS HERE REVEAL THAT THIS LINK MEASURE IS NOT GOOD FOR G43 CHAIN - BE WARNED!!!] The Crosby Alloy 3/8" super shackle pin will fit G30 but NOT G43.

High Test G43 1/4" chain has a 2600# WLL.
This galv. alloy shackle is imco a good match for the link between chain and anchor.

Reading the embossed numbers on the Acco swivel:
There is what appears to be a date stamp: 06/07.
Also 3/4T. (no WLL.)*
On the other shackle of the swivel it says Acco. Then 1/4-5/16. And G4.
The pins are plain without markings.

I pointed out to Peerless in my letters that matching work load limits within an anchor rode system is most important for sailors. I intimated that the pins in the swivel should be equal with the pins in the 3/8" alloy anchor shackle - especially if the swivel is to be used with 5/16" chain.

I complemented the swivel design as the best of all the galvanized swivels available. The bolt (not really a bolt as it is part of the forging of one of the halves) is about 19/32"D, just under 5/8". Pretty hefty.

Told them that if a binding pull came on the fitting with the two pieces at 90 degrees to each other
THERE IS VERY LITTLE MEAT PROTECTING THE BOLT AT THE MATING FLANGES.
Maybe the bolt wouldn't bend perse, but most of the strain would be on the bolt and the holes thru the shackle rather than bearing on the flanges which should be fully circular to fully protect the swivel bolt at any angle of pull. It is the wide flange surfaces of the two pieces of the swivel that appear to make the Acco swivel unique. At 90 degress THERE IS ONLY 1/4" SURFACE BEARING ON THE OPPOSING FLANGE. This is a fault.

Also mentioned that the traditional clipper ship shackle pin eyes had seen they day
and that a shorter pin head was called for.:p

I don't expect a reply from Peerless. We do what we have to do.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________
* Because some voice on the phone says the Working Load Limits for anchor swivels is different than they are for chain... DON'T MAKE IT SO.
WLL is a recognized standard that we can work with
and THAT understanding should hold and be recognized when comparing swivels to chain as we do with chain and shackles.

Tony G

03-09-2009, 11:58 AM

Bear with me on this, Ebb et al. Is this the sequence you have suggested? Manson Supreme--->Acco 3/8" swivel--->Crosby 3/8" shackle--->HT 1/4" chain.
I haven't put much time into studying anchor set-up yet so I'm behind on this thread. Couple that with the fact that I know I'm a much better reader than spellar and then compound the issue by realizing it will take me five times to realize by reading what I can get from a picture just once. Put it all together and shazam!! the light comes on.

ebb

03-09-2009, 01:59 PM

Tony,
To say, in my long
long
long
round about way, I would not rig the ACCO swivel unless I had to.
The 3/8" Crosby Alloy shackle between the anchor and 1/4" HT ACCO chain is adequate for short term anchoring. It is more certain to weather a Craig experienced hurricane with a deep set Supreme. The WLLs are all well above a ton including the anchor.

This is the way out because normally you won't have an oversize link on the ends of your chain rode.
I will go through the pricing process (I'll try 1st Chain on the net) of ordering chain with the oversize because a 7/16" shackle LOOKS a hell of a lot better on the end of a 25# anchor (than a dinky two ton 3/8" A shackle!!)
When you order with the big links I assume that galvanizing is done after the oversize is welded on. It's a custom process.

For general non stormy anchoring out where cycling wind and tide and a hard set anchor can generate knots in chain and line I would put the swivel in.
I would have the CROSBY ALLOY ANCHOR SHACKLE with its pin in the anchor.
Then add the swivel. Then add the chain.
Having that extra shackle means that it is less likely that the swivel will bind.
DON'T RIG THE ACCO SWIVEL TO THE ANCHOR WITH THE FORK. It's easy to imagine a hard set anchor with the rode at a crazy angle yanking on the swivel trying to bend it. Attaching the swivel to another shackle on the anchor shank makes a kind of knuckle. More likely to lead the swivel fairly.
Of course things could still get into a knot when Murphy does the anchoring.

1) Anchor.
2) Crosby alloy anchor shackle - bow in, pin out.
3) G43.

1) Anchor.
2) Crosby alloy anchor shackle - pin in, bow out.
3) Acco Swivel.
4) G43.

imco The Acco Anchor Rode Swivel can use an upgrade.

It's nice enough, but I wouldn't really trust it in a blow.
The embossed markings are ambiguous.
The swivel is not marked well enough to excuse it from the WEAKEST LINK category.:(
I really want a swivel that will always be rigged to the anchor rode system.
[Clearly, do not use ANY fitting - including a shackle - if it does not have clear embossed markings.
The WLL of any fitting in the rode system should be equal to or better than the chain you are using. The Working Load Limit is key to designing the anchor system.]
IMCO

Peerless Chain please answer.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __
Peerless Chain has not contacted this letter writer.

BUT,
I CANNOT GET THE ACCO RODE SWIVEL TO SWING FREE ON A SINGLE SHACKLE TO THE MANSON SUPREME.
Anchor to anchor shackle - anchor shackle to swivel - swivel to chain.
The Supreme has a wide shank end to accommodate the slide option. This means that even with the swivel attached to a regular shackle on the anchor,

THE ACCO SWIVEL WILL STILL BIND ON THE ANCHOR SHANK

even using the larger 7/16" Alloy shackle.
Somebody clue me in, OK?
I don't see how we can rig the Acco Swivel to the Supreme.
Add another shackle ? Too much garbage on the anchor. I'm at a loss.

The Supreme needs a stretch bow shackle. One that will freely pivot from the top to the bottom of the wide shank.
The goddam anchor maker should supply this special shackle with the anchor when you buy it.
The Manson Supreme has had its detractors - often for the whimsical slide option for pulling the anchor out of rock or coral.

THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE MANSON SUPREME IS THAT THERE IS NO SHACKLE AVAILABLE THAT CAN FULLY PIVOT THE END OF THE SHANK.
The full pivot should also be done with another shackle or chain attached to the anchor shackle. This means to me that it is possible for kinking or binding to occur at the attachment point of the Suipreme.

I would complain to these guys.
imco

Chance

04-01-2009, 06:55 PM

I'm seeking a solution.

Just received my 1/4 HT chain and 3/8 Crosby Forged - Quenched and Tempered, with alloy pin, Hot Dip galvanized with red pin which will not pass through the 1/4 G4 HT galvanized chain I have.

What recommendations are there, where WLL it still taken into consideration?

I don't want to significantly dimenish my overall WLL of the entire achoring system (anchor, shackle, chain, nylon) by placing a weak link into the system.

Help!

PS: Both of Crosby's shackles (G209 and the G-209A), the later being the "alloy" version with double the WLL rating have a pin dimension of .44 inches. It is obvious to me that this is too big for 1/4 HT chain.

c_amos

04-01-2009, 09:01 PM

Chance,

I hope you get it worked out, I really do. I said in post 135 on this thread that I saw the same problem. I had a bag of assorted shakles in my 'kit' when I went to put my storm anchor out for the approach of Hurricane Noel while in the Bahamas. Nothing fit except the little 1/4" shakles that looked like they would be at home hanging from an earlobe... :rolleyes:

Maybe you can get a local welder to add an oversized link on the end?

Good luck.

I'm seeking a solution.

Just received my 1/4 HT chain and 3/8 Crosby Forged - Quenched and Tempered, with alloy pin, Hot Dip galvanized with red pin which will not pass through the 1/4 G4 HT galvanized chain I have.

What recommendations are there, where WLL it still taken into consideration?

I don't want to significantly dimenish my overall WLL of the entire achoring system (anchor, shackle, chain, nylon) by placing a weak link into the system.

Help!

PS: Both of Crosby's shackles (G209 and the G-209A), the later being the "alloy" version with double the WLL rating have a pin dimension of .44 inches. It is obvious to me that this is too big for 1/4 HT chain.

ebb

04-02-2009, 07:18 AM

Acco galv. SHORT LINK ISO WINDLASS G43 (embossed) has an inside width of .41. [from catalog spec.]
My 3/8" Crosby A shackles have an actual pin size of 42.5.
&*%#$*&?:>^$@!!!:eek:

There is a 1/4" regular link G43, with the same load specs but (according to a chart on the 1st-chainsupply.com web site) has a .50 inside width. It is self-colored trucker's binding chain that evidently doesn't come galvanized. That figures since galvanized marine anchor chain is calibrated (ISO) for windlass chain gypsies and has a smaller inside diameter (.41).

Embarrassed to say that my 'test' chain must be (by measure) G30.
(Upon closer inspection it is also hallmarked on widely spaced links 'Germany'.)
This is the chain I was going to toss.
The links actually measure inside .45 below the weld.

Acco 1/4" galv. G30 WINDLASS is listed in their catalog with an inside measure of .43.
Acco 1/4" galv. ISO G30 has a .507 inside width.
This 1/2" width in the link is matched by their ungalvanized regular link G43. (from Acco catalog charts.) Doesn't seem correct: I think the 'windlass' G30 is ISO or shorter link.
I'm getting a headache.

[CGEdwards' Crosby G-209-A - with uncolored pins - are the alloy shackles rated twice the WLL of the G-209/S-209 which has the RED PIN. The 3/8" G-209/S-209 is rated at one ton.
This grade has a 5/16", rated at 3/4 ton with a pin diameter of .38. Assume this would fit the 1/4" G43 link.
The G-209-A shackles are not made in 5/16" Maybe they should be.
The alloy probably'd be rated at a ton and a half.]

Look at this:
3/8" G-209 (red) Screw Pin Anchor Shackle - WLL 1 Ton - $6.78.
3/8" G-209A Alloy Screw Pin Anchor Shackle- WLL 2 Ton - $8.90.
They are identical except for the embossing, painted pin and a couple bucks.

We should have shackles that FIT and totally match the WLL of the chain they are used with. Seems like nobody thought of this. Why isn't this the responsibility of the manufacturer?
I measure the pins on the Acco Swivel at .36 (23/64) - just under 3/8". Obviously it fits the 1/4" G43 Acco link.
THIS shows imco that Acco is aware of the SWIVEL SHACKLE PIN and CHAIN LINK width connection.

And in my OPINION
Peerless/Acco should make a dedicated 3/8" Alloy shackle with a slightly narrower diameter pin that would fit their bloody G43 windlass link!
The shackle should match or better the WLL of the G43 link it would be used with. Right?
Their swivel apparently does NOT match the WLL of 1/4" G43 either!

Don't you think Peerless/Acco is aware of these mismatches?

[I feel the same about the Manson Supreme. Mine should have come with a special long shackle (rated at least WLL 3 tons) that pivots completely around the shank of the anchor. Using a normal shackle risks it binding on the shank at some angles of pull. Angles very close to the normal pull angles on the anchor. And that means also that whatever we have connected in the anchor shackle ALSO will bind on the shank of the Supreme.

I hope you all write or call these people.
These are products upon which we bet our lives.

Both of these "problems" should have been addressed by the chain maker
and the anchor maker. It shouldn't be ours.:mad:

Don't know what special order big end link chain will cost. Assume the big link on 1/4" chain would be a 3/8" link which is .394 diameter - with a .60 inside D, too small for the honkin 3.3Ton A 1/2" (,62 pin)Crosby but just fine for the 2.5Ton 7/16" with a .51 pin.
Seems they could weld that on there, don't know. 1st Chain Supply is one online supplier. Their offerings do not include an oversize link on 1/4" G43 ($75 per link). We have to buy 1/2 drums (400' at $2.90 at ft.), pails (133') not offered.
Seen prices 2/3s lower on the net. But China is very active in this area, chain and shackles. I'm 'dark and stormy night' paranoid and will stick with NACM specs. For now.
Going to try to find out why 1/4" REGULAR (.50 inside width - just 1mm too small for a 7/16" pin!!!) G43 cannot be galvanized - won't need that oversize link. Maybe it's already available somewhere. I don't plan an electric windlass on Little Gull. But can see a manual one in the future.
Guess 1/4" G43, whatever length (100' = 76#), wouldn't be too difficult to haul up with a fixed chain pawl.

Apropos not being able to use a larger WLL rated shackle:
it is absolutely mind boggling why these chain and shackle manufacturers have to be 1mm to big on pin sizes viz inside link sizes. Plain stupid!
Perfect example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. There is a blatant safety issue here for mariners and we shouldn't have to downgrade to compromise.
imco

ebb

04-03-2009, 10:28 AM

All off the shelf shackles are too short, imco, for the shackle to make a full pivot around the wide shank end of this anchor.
When you attach chain or a fitting like the Acco Swivel to that shackle it is possible that they can bind and take unnatural leads off the anchor if the anchor is set hard.
It is not always going to happen that the bow of the shackle in the anchor will lead fair off at another angle from a straight on pull. It could bind and it's possible imco that if the strain is strong it could bend the shackle or more likely bend the swivel.
Ole salts know this as 'shackle knot' or anchor bind.

I'm convinced that an optional custom LONG BODY bow shackle should be available from Manson for the Manson Supreme - at this juncture my anchor of choice.
It should be long enough so that the bow of the shackle with chain or another fitting attached pivots completely around the head of the shank without knuckling or catching on the anchor.

There is no such shackle in the marketplace.
I have an anchor without a proper shackle.

I've written a snail and email to Steve Mair at Manson in New Zealand.
Unlike Peerless/Acco,
Manson communicates with its customers.:rolleyes:

Chance

04-05-2009, 05:42 AM

Thanks gents, for the feedback. Ebb, your thorough and well said posts are very appreciated.

This is what I know: It's point less to buy 1/4 HT chain because in order to connect all the components (anchor, chain, nylon rode, etc.) one will end up having to use a shackle that is rated significantly less (WLL) than the chain itself. As we all know, the anchoring system is only as strong as the weakest link, and in this case it's not the chain link, it's the shackle. It all comes down to size restrictions.

So....

Here's what I have decided: I am moving up to 20 feet of 5/16 Hight Test chain. This chain will serve as leader from the plow, and will transition to 150 feet of 1/2 three strand nylon.

5/16 HT has a WLL of 3900 lbs
Crosby G-209A alloy shackle of 4000 lbs
Samson Pro-set premium nylon 3 strand has a strength average of 6300 lbs.

I'm thinking of using the 1/4 HT chain I have with a Fortress, a 5/16 Crosby shackle and keeping this set up for a secondary / back up.

I would have liked to have more than 20 feet of 5/16 HT up in the bow, but the weight is adding up significantly:

Anchor roller: 11 lbs
Anchor: 22 lbs
platform (to be constructed) approx. 15 lbs
Chain: approx. 20 lbs
Nylon: approx. 10 lbs
Bronze deck pipe: Approx. 5 lbs
Fasteners: Approx. 2 lbs
Total: 85 pounds! (all at the exteme forward end)

c_amos

04-05-2009, 10:41 PM

Chance,

Don't know if this helps any, but I have about the same set-up, probably a bit more weight in the anchor roller, and I have 55' of 5/16" chain. I noticed no effect from the weight up forward. In the context of a loaded crusing boat I do not think the difference is AS significant. Some talk of 'hobby horsing' with weight at the ends... never saw it aboard our boat....

ebb

04-06-2009, 08:53 AM

Craig,
Could say that 5/16" is 1 ton stronger in WLL, (the breaking strength is two tons greater!)
at only 25% more weight: 1/4" at 73# and 5/16" at 103# per 100 feet.
Good numbers.

Let me ask you:
If you were going Pacific for example would you carry chain - and what length?

If you had a long length, how would you handle it? Haul it in with a chain pawl? Manual windlass? How would you let it out?
I'm imagining I'd have to get some leather palm work gloves on, trip the anchor, sit on my butt bracing against the pulpit and try to control its descent.
(Actually, I'd have it rigged somehow for dropping the anchor off the bow from the cockpit. But I'd probably have to haul it in as described,):o
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________
This is a later post (4/11/09)...... so it won't pop up on the main board.

It is confirmed that Peter Smith, maker, inventor (if you must), of the Rocna Anchor HAS SOLD THE BUSINESS (to an unknown buyer). The new owner is indeed having anchors made in China. Evidently they have been experimenting with casting the complicated shape of the Rocna fluke (trying to cut fabrication costs?). But welding or attaching a steel alloy shank to a cast blade is a big problem.
For me, the simpler shape of the Supreme is a big plus and obviously for Manson a simpler fabrication. It is a 'break through' design because of its simplicity.
Practical Sailor, up to its old tricks in anchor testing, has a really annoying 'test' by a"world cruiser" in their Dec08 issue. The guy is said to have "tested his new Supreme in anchorages rated Good for holding." Big red flag!
The guy is prejudiced toward Bruce/Claw/Ray type anchors which he has had a load of experience with. Look at the cruising sites on the internet and that's what you find: guys stuck on their favorite CQRs and Bruces. They are used to handling them, they fit in their bow rollers, they look right. Why would I be influenced by a single report - even if the guy is a "PS contributor"? It's only an opinion (of a "world cruiser") Teeny red flag! Not taking any respect away from the guy - it is the PREMISE that doesn't hold bottom!

Chance

04-06-2009, 05:36 PM

Gents,
I have ordered my 20 foot length of 5/16 HT chain and it's in the mail.

I was concerned about the weight accumulation and subsequant "hobby horsing" effect some experience. It appears I have no worries. Now, I'm debating with myself weather I should go with 200 feet of 1/2 nylon vice the 150 foot length. With a typical safe scope payout of 7:1, this would suggest that I'm limited to a depth of no more than approximately 23 feet of water. I know, there are many varibles and that at times a 7:1 is not practical (over crowded anchorage), limited swing room, and at other times this scope would not be sufficient, gale force winds, looming storm, strong thunderhead. These conditions would support a scope of more like 10:1 to better the odds that the anchoring set up will do it's intended job, all else being equal and working correctly.
I don't have the nylon yet, and by the rate at which my refurbishing is going, won't need it anytime soon. Still, I like to plan ahead and dream of when the time will come that I too, can "SWING" on the hook and enjoy!

ebb

04-14-2009, 09:30 AM

A good subject. The net cruisers talk about it a lot.
I'm not sure there is a side to lean toward unless I am to be persuaded totally by the weight issue.

A certain length of 5/16", or a couple, certainly solves the WLL "weakest link" problem.
Extreme cruising might require an all chain rode but it may be unnecessary.
(Larry Pardey in the Self-Sufficient Sailor argues for 30' 5/16" BBB and nylon line. His intent is to prevent the rode from from pulling the anchor shank upward. Long scope and kedging.) BUT I'll study what he says - again - soon.

What are the pros and cons of the argument in relation to small cruisers such as the Ariel and Commander?

What is the best line to use and what diameter? EG: Nylon has been seriously called into question because of its elasticity, ease of chafe, and melting:eek: under load.

Any credible sites deal with this?:confused:
Trustworthy sources?

Chance

04-14-2009, 03:10 PM

Ebb,
Good, thought provoking questions. It is my understanding, and by no means am I an expert on the subject, but...
selecting a balance between some chain (a leader for weight to reduce and upward pull on the anchor's shank, to serve as as type of pivoting arm that absorbs some shock, and chafe protection from the sea floor)
Nylon rode's benefits:
1) help manage weight
2) Will absorb some of the shock load and will (by design) stretch a bit (this is a good thing) when hard lurching strains are placed on the anchor system. The key here is assuming a diameter is chosen that is not too big, otherwise we loose the benefit of the stretch effect)

Of course, it's prudent upon the Captain to manage "Chafe" while using nylon.

Also, a bridle assemby is of primary benefit, it aides in centering the anchor rode's line of pull with the steam head fitting as well as splits the load placed on the chafing points. In essence a properly rigged bridle will provide a back up should one side be chafed through and will minimize the bow's tendacy to sway from port to starboard and so forth when the rode comes off of the bow "not" on center line, which virtually impossible anyways with the forestay in the way.

I'm sure there has been "limitless" discussions all over, and articles written about all this, but I can't quote any site specific, sorry.

We mustn't forget that one could conceivable have the "ideal" and "best" anchor system setup and then it all goes to the crab pot so to speak because of improper or unknowledgable deployment, setting and monitoring, etc..

Bill

05-18-2009, 10:29 PM

From Scuttlebutt:

ANCHORS AND ANCHORING TECHNIQUES
Choosing an anchor for the 2009 season? Anchors come in a variety of types, Fluke, Claw, CQR, and the Fisherman. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. This week’s newsletter (http://myboatsgear.com/newsletter/200788.asp) looks at each anchor type and their modern equivalents. We also provide some anchor test data and links to reports. This information will help you pick the right anchor and size! RSS feeds are available at http://myboatsgear.com/mbg/index.asp

ebb

05-19-2009, 08:03 AM

I feel that in terms of impartiality the language in above website (myboatsgear) is a proxy for the Mocna anchor. I would not be surprised that the whole piece is written by Peter or Craig Smith as there is a direct put down of the Manson Supreme - and familiar phrases and hype from the Mocna web site. The Smiths have populated a number of websites on the net supporting and advertising their anchor (including this Forum) - many of them imco irrationally and blatantly attacking the Supreme.
Conversely, Manson, to my knowledge, has never attacked the Mocna anchor.

The Mocna anchor business has been sold to new owner.
As I understand it, the anchors are now made in China and the complicated fluke/blade is now cast with the plate shank welded on to that. This is hearsay, but it is also, if true, a serious development with a once promising anchor.

Unsupported opinions are not impartial or trustworthy.:)

IMCO The website above (myboatsgear) is a disguised and irresponsible advertisement for the Mocna anchor. BEWARE.
I'm NOT saying that there is no good general knowledge about anchors and anchoring here taken from other web sites. I am saying that there is a definite skew toward making the Mocna seem the best choice.

There is no proof or test that has shown the slotted shank of the Supreme causes it to be weak. The slot may be whimsical but the shank and indeed the fluke are both fabricated from a T-1 steel alloy equivalent that has amazing attributes.

ebb

05-20-2009, 07:40 AM

This is strictly OPINION:
Abandoning your Mocna anchor to a new owner who would have anchors fabricated, OR cast, OR forged in China is really most unfortunate. Is it possible to put years of sweat and tears into a unique product and then sell the production rights and name without restrictions?

We may never know the story, but it appears to be a tragedy of sorts.
From the first time I viewed the flawed and droll video on the Mocna web site, I felt that something was not quite right. Son Craig on every forum for years acting as a kind of shill for his dad's invention - also added to the bad taste I got (and others too it seems) about the anchor's provenance.

There was perhaps too much eccentricity connected with the product. I'm all for eccentricity - but it has to be transparent and above board. I feel Mocna made mistakes in the way the anchor was promoted on the internet. Being an expensive anchor, maybe sales were souring for them and that is why they sold out.

They were also in the unenviable position of being a protagonist without an adversary, without ever really winning any battles against Manson. I don't think Manson ever legitimized Mocna's puny war by responding.
Manson produces copies of most popular anchors. That's a fact.
On the face of it, that does seem suspicious. However the company produces anchors of every size and weight for the whole southern hemisphere market. Purely business. Have you heard that any of their anchor styles are inferior? Or patent infringements? You might see them as a market force with a steely corporate persona. SO, if you are an itty bitty anchor maker you can be david battling goliath to get sympathy for your case by blogging the internet. Maybe Ahab blogging the white whale is more appropriate.*

Mocna wanted people to think that the Manson Supreme is a copy of the Mocna. By now anybody can see that the fluke concepts are totally different. Roll bars are roll bars - but even they are not copies of one another. Weight placement, balance and shanks different as well. There are still those who post on the forums whose opinions are influenced only by the hype from the Mocna propaganda machine and not by their own examination. Only by testing can the anchors be compared, not by ignorance and biased opinion.

Manson makes anchors. While like other large manufacturers perhaps impersonal, their reputation is solid and uncomplicated.
Did other boat owners get put off by Mocna's negative attitude and just naturally graduated to the Supreme because single flukes with hot roll bars had come of age? Became fashionable. Peter and Craig led me right to the Supreme! And the price was right!

I'm sure the Supreme needs improvement and some upgrading.
But I'll bet the anchor will be around awhile.
It must be particularly special for Manson because it is NOT A COPY. It is Manson's own stand-alone design.

Nor is it improvement on a Spade with a roll bar added.
The Mocna may have gone south.
If it has, that's sad.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______
Later post, just found this...check it out and check me out. You'll have to type it in.

google> Bent Manson supreme - Page 3 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

The address is one of those that probably won't compute here.
This seems to be a fairly recent series of posts.
No Craig S in this batch.
[But scanning back I see I've footnoted this same Cruising and Sailing Forums site recently. Maybe even the same thread. Memory's going south..]
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________
another long forum:
Type in the google headline> Yachting and Boating World forums Rocna anchors - hard to come by
- gets you on a page where about eight posts in there is the longest post I've seen by Manson defending its rep.
Next page (last page of the thread?) there is a Manson response to the rusted and bent Supreme phenomena. Some testiness in both responses.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________
* [David was a young seaman who believed in a anthropomorphic bearded authority figure who spoke Whinge. David said, "The Lord who delivered me from the claw of Bruce and from the CQR of Simpson, will deliver me from the brand of this Philistine. David took his sling and five smooth Rocknas from the brook and went to fight the goliath Manson....."]
Just for fun, kids.:rolleyes:

c_amos

04-19-2011, 06:05 PM

The 'new generation' anchors are great, but have done nothing to quell the long standing debate over which one is best.

The truth is anchoring has more to do with proper seamanship then the bit of metal at the end of the rode.

I bought my Manson Supreme in 2006 (IIRC) and have had outstanding service from it.... it has never dragged.... even through a hurricane.

When I bought my Manson, I also looked at the Rocna. Both were then made in New Zealand and were very similar in appearance. I do not doubt that either would have been a good choice (at the time) but the Rocna was more expensive.... and the Manson had Loyds certification so I went with the Manson Supreme.

Over the years, I have followed the discussion and frankly some of the marketing was ugly... it was more mud slinging then fact, and Rocna seemed to be the most active in the slinging... I grew less and less pleased with the marketing.

A while back Rocna moved their production to China, I was skeptical (I know China has produced many questionable products, and would not recommend using Chinese steel in such an important component as my ground tackle.

Some photos surfaced of rusty Rocnas (with apparent galvanization issues) and others of Rocna's with bent shanks (after Rocna reps slammed Manson for much less significant bending). http://s1.postimage.org/5pru65w27/bentrocna.jpg

A third party (excellent poster known as Main Sail) challenged Rocna to test their anchor;s construction... the declined to participate so an off the shelf Rocna was tested against an off the shelf Manson Supreme and....

Well Manson just paid for some independent testing, to see if Rocna could live up to their claims of being superior.

The Manson Challenge To Rocna

"If you would please bring down your anchor, we can test it on our calibrated and certified test jig. We have tested it against ours. We have videoed those tests. However in the interests of posting something that you will not say is made up, I welcome you to come here and we will video your face as we do the tests so the readers can see what eating your words after years of misinformation looks like.

Put up or shut up Craig. Any time you would like to test your anchor we are here. Any time."

Last edited by Maine Sail (http://www.anything-sailing.com/showthread.php/7877-Manson-vs.-Rocna/page4); 3 Weeks Ago at 09:50 AM. The tests results are here. (http://manson-marine.co.nz/SitePages/Supreme_Anchor_high_standards.htm)

I have long not been a fan of Rocna, but would absolutely not feel comfortable recommending one based on the this and the discussions that have taken place here (http://www.anything-sailing.com/showthread.php/7877-Manson-vs.-Rocna/page17). (warning, 17 pages long!)

ebb

04-28-2011, 05:06 PM

That is an amazing photo. Also a very weird awkward anchor roller.
When I was on the hype trail, discovered both anchor makers made statements that they used essentially the same steel alloy for their shanks.
To see the Rocna shank bent like a noodle we miught suspect mild steel was used. This is just as revealing as the actual mechanical face off test. Don't believe the T-1 steel that Manson says their shank is made from can be bent like that (T-1 is used to make backhoe buckets).
It probably takes an idiot on a windlass and the anchor caught in something immovable on the bottom to make it happen.
But it seems from the face-off metal testing that the conclusion is that Rocna is plainly NOT constructed with equal materials to the Manson Supreme. I accept that.

From the tension photos of the broken anchors it does look like shanks were not subjected to sideways bend tests. That would be interesting and more conclusive.

SHANK TO FLUKE CONNECTION.
Focused my personal fears on the shank-to-fluke WELD on both anchors. The Rocna (IF THE SHANK IS ACTUALLY WELDED AND WHAT WE SEE IN THE PHOTO IS NOT A SINGLE CASTING) has a beautiful weld bead along the seam between shank and fluke. And that looks like that weld survived, didn't crack, from whatever SIDE force was used to pretzel the shank.

My off-the-shelf Manson Supreme - along the same BUTT WELDED seam - has a series of three beads welded on top of one another on each side. One side of the shank looks very pretty. The other side doesn't - it's sort of flat and might even be missing a bead....so I'll always wonder about the consequences when hooked off a lee shore in hurricane Harriet.

It seems that the machine test is merely a kind of stretch test, often done with metals. I'd like to see how it was set up in the machine.
Bending tests are obviously just as important if not more important. And definitely I'd want to see high stress put on that shank to fluke weld. That would get my attention. Call it the Fabrication Ultimatum.
I like to see a test that tries to puill the shank off the fluke to test that weld!
There needs to be an accompaning VIDEO of the demonstration. Pix of broken anchors are not good enough.

As far as it goes,
MANSON DID NOT GO ALL THE WAY
with the Rocna challenge testing. As a stand alone comparrison it is merely a gimmick.

Nothing has been proven.
Imco has always been that the shank should be brought thru a forged mortise in the fluke (The Spade does this on their take apart) and WELDED TOP AND BOTTOM to the blade.

THAT will convince me that the weld would never let the shank separate from the fluke!!!
Even if one or the other, or both, got twisted.

ebb

09-06-2011, 10:57 AM

Practical Sailor, Sept, 2011,
has a page and a half "Product Update" titled: " West Marine Issues Rocna Spec Notice".

(what follows is my opinion on the subject)
This article details Rocna CEO Steve Bambury trying to bamboozle his and his company's way out of what appears to be a deliberate down grading of the alloys used to construct the WHOLE RANGE OF ROCNA ANCHORS. This includes misrepresenting alloys advertised on their internet site. [have heard the website has since been scrubbed] Stainless are not talked about here. Just Rocna's in a "feyre cloke" of zinc.

Quote from the article:
"According to Bambury, Rocna recently learned that a 'small portion' of anchors manufactured in China during the first quarter of 2010 were made 'using a shank steel with a reduced specification.'
'We know that less than 300 anchors ranging in sizes from 9 to 330 pounds.' Bambury told PS. 'None of the 33-pound models were sent to North Amorica and can be ruled out.' He said there is no way to identify the anchors with the reduced specifications."
9 to 330 pounds is the whole Rocna range.

According to PS, quoting an independant contractor overseeing Rocna's China production, the lower grade shafts began appearing in 2008 when Rocna moved its manufacturing from Canada and New Zealand to China.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
This means there isn't a single Rocna anchor in the marketplace, off the shelf, on the floor in a West Marine store that you can trust your life to.
Or, for that matter, off the bow of a cruiser. You might be OK if you bought a Rocna 5 years ago?

Here, in the quote above, you have that first Bambury statement in the PS article..... which says it all.
Realize that each anchor in the range from 9 to 330 pounds has a different shank thickness. Don't know for sure, of course, but that has to be a fair assumption. BUT that does mean that a lot of different thicknesses of plate for this range of model sizes were made with the mild steel alloy. If you make a lot of anchors, that is a lot of material you must have on site to cut a run of shaft blanks from. THAT is not a MISTAKE. That is deliberate intent.

And will Bambury assure that the rest of the anchor, the fluke, is not flukey as well? Made with another downgraded compromise.
Who is getting REDUCED here?
A bunch of sailors whose lives hang on a dependable hook.

Bambury Rocna MUST RECALL EVERY ROCNA FORGERY they have made since moving to China.
West Marine (which seems always to have some problem or other) by making this deception public will have difficulty owning up to their return policy, how far back will they go? But there are a number of walking dead out there who will always be satisfied with cartoon anchors.

Why would anybody do this to a company? Bankrupt its infered reputation? Unbelievable.
This tragedy is not just a matter of a few plates finding their way onto the factory's receiving dock. This has to be sabatage, pure and simple. Bambury's quote above is disingenuous and probably a complete fiction.
No trust will be given to ANY Rocna anchor again.
How real is it that the CEO just 'recently learned' of the skewed specifications of his business' ONE product?
AND that only a "small portion" of counterfeit anchors made it to the marketplace?

Would I buy this company's foule pyg?

What's in a name? [The Manson Supremacy.]
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________
I will never bye the pyg in the poke.
Theres many a foule pyg in a feyre cloke.

(The Phrase Finder) John Heywood, Proverbes and Epigrammes 1555-60
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______
s/v Faith heads up a long discussion on this subject on the sailfar.net site

ebb

09-08-2011, 08:40 AM

ARE THERE ANY VISIBLE DIFERENCES BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND AND CHINA MADE ROCNA'S?

There must be SOME obvious manufacturing differences (aside from alloy content) between Smith & Son New Zealand/Canada Rocna's and the present day Bambury made-in-China anchors. (The obvious difference is the china cast fluke. But does every china Rocna have a cast fluke?)

Owners of Rocna's could examine their hooks for any telltales in manufacturing that are obvious to anybody that will help identify the counterfeits. They are sure to start appearing at parking lot flea markets and garage sales. And maybe in marine stores without pedigree. CAVEAT EMPTOR

AND SHOW US THE SIGNS. And post forums on the subject.

Maybe West Marine and other vendors - and publications like Practical Sailor and other marine magazines will take notice as well - identify the differences for us - and PUBLISH them.
[yeah, ryeet, watch these guys fall all over themselves clueing us in!]

GALVANIZING is a technical art form.
It is possible that the hot dip was also compromised on the fraudulent Rocna's and is obvious as well.
Chipping of the zinc, rust appearing in the shackle wear area, patina rust, rust at the welds, etc.
Could very well be that if your Rocna has a problem with its galvanize it probably is China made.
Good galvanizing lasts forever!
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________

Bambury ROCNA
has been marketing a 6 and a 9 pound "fisherman anchor" which has a DIRECT COPY OF THE MANSON SLIDE SHANK.
At first glance it is an exact copy of the Manson shank - but in a dogleg style. How doya like dem pyges?

Guess something as blatant as this is not so much an attempt to horn in on the Manson design but is an attempt to take business away from Sarca who FIRST introduced commercial sliding shank anchors aimed primarily at the small boat inshore fisherman.
Who can forget those endless Craig Smith posts (and very elaborate illustrated put-down articles by Peter Smith) attempting to ridicule Manson and Sarca for their shackle riding shanks?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______
You can't cheat an honest man. Never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump. Otis Criblecoblis
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______

SARCA
You can find a youtube of Rex Francis at a 2010 boat show extolling the virtues of a hoopless, slideless,
squashed Ex-cell Sarca
that for all the world looks exactly like an improvisation of a dogleg DELTA plow.
It seems to be aimed at the flaunt-your-jammy-anchor-on-the-bow-roller crowd.

Francis has also produced some SUV/tractor anchor pulling Utube demos that show anchors being dragged for distance in sand. These pulls are essentially horizontal and show the anchors making gopher-like furrows. Supreme's and Rocna's make a disturbed and obvious furrow while the more recognizable cage-style Sarca's tunnel a little deeper, visually disturb the sand surface less - and purport to take more pounds of pull because of their deeper set. But still are obviously dragable - and, one would suppose, also doing an excellent job amalgamating the tunnel ecosystem.
There is more flimflam than science in this kind of stuff.

Best of luck to Rex Francis who is and still is imco a unique innovator and inventor. Thanks for his input here on this Forum.
(In the past Sarca anchors were all deliberately made with mild steel. Don't know if this is still the case with his EX-CEL or one absolutely huge 'cage' Sarca I found on the web.)

ebb

09-26-2011, 09:57 AM

petersmith.net.nz
Peter Smith's website has NO MENTION OF THE ROCNA ANCHOR SWINDLE.
[PracticalSailor article implies the evidence was evident in 2008.]

craigsmith is alive and, well, still posting on ybw.com
There are posts from the end of Feb this year, 2011.

Couldn't stand all his blather - but you'll be happy to read he is up to his usual ways, this time it looks like he takes aim at the Francis SARCA pull tests. I have no problem with that - but the least of craigsmith insinuations is calling those Utube videos a "scam."
Scam is not the right word. Scam implies intent. I don't believe Francis is a dishonest man. The videos are not well thought out as convincing presentations of a superior product - if indeed superior product is what a SARCA is.
Any sailor/cruiser is going to take exception to the demos.
They are BS.
And so is the craigsmith maligning of rexfrancis - at the same time MOCK ROCNA'S are being cranked out in china.

The problem is that because the comparisons are at least as stupid and biased as the stupid and biased 'tests' on the Rocna site,
it calls the product being boosted into question. Double (or Triple) jeopardy, wouldn't you say?

Why fake anything if you have a superior product?

The problem is that some boat owners will take the demonstrations seriously.

Another way of seeing these Francis SARCA demos
might be to take these videos as making fun
of all the other half-fast SUV tests we've seen and make fun of.

The problem is the missing little smiley face:) that we need to clue us in to what attitude to take!

Just remember the LONGER IT TAKES for the principals here to PUBLICALLY admit that every ROCNA anchor of the last THREE YEARS is a
FORGERY
the more likely somebody by buying a new china ROCNA will have a serious episode with it that could cost them their boat
or their lives.
There must be thousands who bought BOGUS BAMBURY ROCNAS.

ARE YOU SERIOUSLY EVER GOING TO TRUST A ROCNA?
I think Bernie Madodff is the real brains behind this deal...
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________
for R.F.
I must create a system or be enslaved by another man's.
I will not reason and compare, my business is to create. Will Blake, inventor 1757/1827

ebb

09-27-2011, 11:46 AM

Cape Dory Boats - View topic - Rocna Anchors Situation
That's a google.
At the moment the furor over the Rocna anchor deception is being aired only on forums and discussion sites.
With the laudable exception of West Marine who have sent postcards to customers about the situation and
the exception of Practical Sailor who have gone into the deception in some revealing depth and detail.
Reported in their Sept 2011 issue.
The Cape Dory site has a lead into the www.rocna.com/WMupdate on the Rocna Anchor home site.
It is titled by the writer as "UPDATE FOR WEST MARINE CUSTOMERS."
(Visited a few other vendors, including Azure, none make mention of the compromised anchors.)

IN THE ABOVE STATEMENT
Roncna says, quote: "the notification you received from West Marine is not a product recall. Neither Rocna nor West Marine have issued a product recall on any Rocna anchors."
Rocna goes on to say, "our manufacturing specifications have evolved over time, primarily to reflect material locally available...
"We have since updated this website content and we sincerely apologize...."
"The exact materials used are part of the proprietary intellectual property in our production specifications. Rest assured...."

"While the materials used to make the Rocna have evolved, our functional specification has remained the same throughout."
Rocnas "meet or exceed RINA's Super High Holding Power (SHHP) classification requirements."

This last bit has since been proven to be a lie in the Manson Destruction Challenge. Unanswered by Rocna.
There are NO tests, independantly conducted or otherwise, that can be said to prove the strength of an anchor if that anchor was supplied by the manufacturer for the test.
What anchor was it that was used in the D.M.Standen Ltd destruction test mentioned at the end of the Update piece?
Upshot, what Rocna is saying is that
ROCNA INTENDS TO CONTINUE MAKING ANCHORS AND DOING BUSINESS AS THEY HAVE BEEN -
with no intention of making any changes whatsoever.
That leads us to understand, I would think, that the anchors will "evolve" steadily into worse and worser Bambury Rocna's.

Watch it!
That mealy-mouthed garbage quoted above
matches exactly the mealy "locally available" material they used to make the Rocna on the end of your warp.

OK, Suppose you got your chain from an outfit that published chain specs like that unconscionable trash above:

'WE MANUFACTURE CHAIN WITH EVOLVED MATERIAL THAT'S AVAILABLE LOCALLY - G-20, G-WHIZZ, WHATEVER.....
IT'S OUR SECRET PROPRIETARY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
REST ASSURED, YOU DON'T HAVE NO STINKING RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT ALLOY OUR CHAIN IS MADE WITH.
TRUST US,
YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO COMPREHEND THE SPECS ANYWAY.

Golly, Miss Molly, gotta get me one of them rockin NEW DEGENERATE ANCHORS !

Rest assured "Rock Solid" Rocna is sinking like a rock.

ebb

09-30-2011, 09:45 AM

Probably better you go if interested to sailnet
google> Rocna Anchors Has Been Sold !!!
where the boys in the club there already have four pages of posts going.

CMP is/was primarily a contract die-casting manufactury of non-ferrous products - like marine anodes.
They also sell the ususal selection of "Engineered in Canada" (but not made in Canada) marine chain* that is aimed at the pleasure boating industry.
There is no indication that that chain is not made in China. Wherever.
Because the chain product range is limited to the recreation boat industry imco that is the case.

(Primarily anode makers under the rubric 'Martyr', they are new to the chain business -2010 - the CMP chain is unsupported by any literature. And new to the anchor business 2011. In 2004 they opened an anode factory in Nangbo China - unknown if they closed their home base in Canada.)
CMP says that Rocna recreation anchors will continue to be made in China.
In fact this Vancouver company may just be the same old China rice-straw man with a different ID badge.

Peter Smith evidently is back on board - if ever he wasn't.
This gives me zero confidence.
Bambury is out? But even that is not evident.
No statements. It's all subterfuge and cover up.
Everything about this drama is suspicious - even if I want to believe in good news and positive developments, it is probably a lie.

As far as I FEEL about this, nothing has changed. It's nearly always has been about BAD ATTITUDE this company produced together with its product.
The Rocna name is beyond redemption.

[Later EDIT 9/30/11]
ybw.com
Rocna Anchors Acquired by Canada Metal Pacific [go to Forums, find 'Scuttlebut', scroll to title.]
for ten pages more (and counting) on this subject from the Brit perspective. Where major players appear in disquise (and thereby continue to promote Rocna's bad breath) like CMP has a spokesposter on the forum - also other spokespersons for the company who swear they are not CraigSmith. Much maligned Grant King (in the role of whistle blower) is present. Lively - but cons (negative on Rocna and its methods) still outweigh the pros considerably.

Appears to me that all along the company never has changed hands at all. There never has been a clear statement by any entity. And if there are what appear to be credible statements, as on the ybm.com forum, the talkers masquerade and peek-a-boo. Same players up to the same tricks, looks like to me. Why use a forum to clear Rocna's name? And do that pretending to be something you're not?
It is as if every effort is made to show that Ronco chinese anchors really are something they are not. Down graded anchors disquised to look like and marketed as real ones.
I'll bet you that
Steve Bambury CEO is merely a Rocna employee who screwed up
(to my knowledge he hasn't been keelhauled yet)
when too many bent shanks showed up and pissed West Marine off
- and Rocna wouldn't own up to their trying to keep from public record bad specification changes that Peter Smith (one poster says) supposedly went along with. Or deliberately signed off on. Who the hell knows???

[CMP is not, will not be, the manufacturer of the Rocna - nor is CMP imco the manufacturer of the chain they sell.*
They contract with a third party, usually secret, supplier whose business is to produce name brand products. Walmart, Sears, Trader Joes, they all do this these days.
As does the current cosmetic Rocna.
If that factory is in China you have NO control over the content of the product.
No accountability, No codes or standards need apply. Just read Rocna's statements of intent.
Brand name china products have a long history of some turning out dangerous, contaminated, badly made, and imco are produced without regard for employees or the environment. If Rocna had remained in New Zealand they would be 'thriving on excellence and innovation.' Not foundering on the brink of oblivion.]
This statement I have bracketed in this later EDIT was said without understanding who or what CMP Global is. There is, however, no way of my knowing how or what products are made by CMP in China. Company literature and announcements are full of pumped up language and half truths and omissions that put on a best and least controversial mask.
If I was a Kiwi in need of a decent anchor, I would on principle alone NOT own a china Rocna.

pfftoo!
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________
*stick with Peerless and Campbell.
I do not know that this is a fact. It is just my feeling given the climate of present Rocna decision making that they are committed to this self-destructive route.

EDIT (10/1/11): Practical Sailor Oct 2011 arrived with no followthru on the West Marine non-recall of Rocna anchors, investigated and published in their Sept. issue.

ebb

10-07-2011, 08:33 AM

new thread on cruisersforum.com
You must check out page three of the thread.

[CMP has yet to make a statement of its own on Rocna.
They have used third party methods to talk with us the consumer.
Yachting Monthy supposedly says that CMP will take back and make right any Rocna worldwide.
Sounds good, eh? But it doesn't come from the horse's mouth.
Probably protecting themselves from liability. Filtering through the press means you can deny or be misquoted.
YOU are responsible for the return, not CMP. Not Rocna.]

The Peter Smith letter reproduced on the cruisersforum thread proves to me what I have suspected all along.
THIS ROCNA DRAMA IS A SINGLE CHAIN OF EVENTS.

Peter Smith and Craig Smith are part and parcel with the newest name change.

Peter Smithness and Craig Smithness is permanently part of the Rocna anchor business.

If CMP is real and not a china straw man for a china factory that is not libel for the products they make, are not subject to western metal standards and codes, then the anchor might be stopped from its downward spiral. That would be extraordinary and unlikely because I believe that THIS has been the anchor's destiny from its outset. That bad smell seems always to have stuck to this product.

Every anchor that the china factory makes must be tested.
Every anchor smallest to the heaviest.
That includes every Manson lookalike the Nangbo factory is making under the Rocna label.

They must prove that the cast fluke is 100% connected to the plate shank.
They must permit third party confirmation that the alloys they say they are making the anchors with are actually being used to make those anchors.
Unannounced inspections as is done with third world nuclear installations.

Both Peter Smith and Craig Smith should be severed from the manufacturing and promotional functions of the "new owner." They can blog all they want to. But because of the sleaze they have contributed to the anchor's name, they should be divorced from any connection, including advisory, to the anchor.
I really don't believe that CMP in their relationship with Rocna are in any way separate from the Smiths.

CMP ought to retire the Rocna brand name and come up with a new one.
How about Ancor? (Even backwards there's something missing in that name too!)

THAT won't happen. They depend on our short memory and tendency to forgive. And, if not continually stimulated, our tendancy to quickly forget.
They depend on a wide global market that isn't exposed to, never heard about, has been censored from this deliberate fraud.
A bad anchor will result some day in a bad accident. Why encourage Rocna in this endeavor?
Right! It's the victim who is to blame for "improper deployment of his anchor."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
CMP is a 120 year old company that is in the nonferrous metals business, foundry and casting.
They have a couple of product lines that have their own web pages. Martyr brand anodes: Zinc for salt water and magnesium and aluminum anodes for sweet water - they advertise that the Mg and Al anodes are environmentally free of cadmium. CMP for 20 years has been in the autopilot business with two product lines: Octopus Autopilot Drive Systems and Intellisteer.
That is basicaly it.
They have added as recently as 2010 a line of 6 styles of chain (most in 1/4' to 1/2" and mm sizes) aimed at the same boat market.
So the current repeatable announcement that they have acquired the licence to market Rocna and that the anchor will compliment the chain which is sold under their CMP Global label makes some risky sense. According to one forum poster who says he bought some CMP 5/16" chain in Ft Lauderdale, he had the galvanizing fail, chip off.

CMP Global chain is advertised as "ISO-9001 Quality Assurance - Exceeds Industry Standards - Engineered in Canada - Proof Tested." Impressed???
Make what you will of those words.
"ISO-9001 does not specify requirements for the goods and services you are purchasing. That is up to you to define by making clear your own needs and expectations for the product. A statement of conformity to ISO-9001 should not, however, be considered as a substitute for a declaration or statement of PRODUCT conformity."
(Above quote from the ISO = International Organisation for Standardization)
What you want when buying chain is: DOT Final Rule WLL - NACM Chain Specs. - Fed Specs RR-C-271E - ASTM / ANSI numbers. Each chain has its own spec numbers: For example: GMP Global sells ISOG43 HT Windlass Chain, yet the chain description ends with the suggestion that you call to find out what the maunfacturer's numbers are for the chain you are ordering. I've found only ONE internet RV(!) supply in the east coast US that admits to selling CMP chain. Could be I'm tired of trying how to find the stuff.
ISO Quality Assurances are merely promises.
Is CMP a big enough sponge to suck back what Rocna stole from the public?

Just what will the Assurances be that accompany the new new new generation Rocna?
Will they be OUR ASSURANCES?
HOW DO WE MAKE CLEAR OUR "OWN NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS"??? I would like THAT made clear!
We might be able to trust these people.
It seems, on the face of it, that Peter Smith just in convincing CMP, under "licencing agreement", to make Rocna's in China and globally market Rocna's makes him a very fortunate New Zealander indeed! Would make better press if CMP made chain and anchors in South Korea!

CMP Global owns a factory in Nangbo China into which they say they invested 6.5 million. Canadian dollars or Yen is not clear. And I would guess that owning a factory in China does not include the real estate it sits on. And 6.5 million of any money in terms of an investment sounds paltry for a large established business. Certainly would suppose CMP chain is made in China. CMP does not say where. "Engineered in Canada" is the kind of BS I choke on. It certainly suggests that if they say 'Engineered in China", it wouldn't fly! If you have a decent product why attempt to buzz it up with contrived language? It doesn't fly either. Not convinced that there isn't something rotten here.

Could definitely say that Rocna is 'engineered in New Zealand.' That's a guess of course.
Funny thing, nothing so far in this Smithness & Smithness drama has convinced me to change out my
Peter-Smith-blatant-Rocna-copy-Manson-Supreme for a CMP-Global-Rocna.
(Peter Smith's elaborate web site dedicated to putting down the MansonSupreme pops up on the internet EVERY time you type Manson Supreme into google. Is this a pay-for-pop-up service perpetrated by google that Peter Smith purchased from them?) Check it out....EVERY TIME!

Yachting Monthly mag, for their Oct 2011 issue, promises an article that will unscramble this big bowl of noodles for us. We'll see if it gets out of the kitchen.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
This quote does seem appropriate on a number of levels:
"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
Pat Moynihan, USSenator in office 1977-2001
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
:DParaphrasing the famous line of Alphonso Bedoya's - playing the jefe bandit in the Treasure of the Sierra Madre movie:
Numbers? We don't have to show you no stinking numbers!

ebb

10-16-2011, 07:34 AM

www.canmet.com/content/resources/...ROCNA%20MEMO.pdf

In my considered opinion:
latest from CMP on the subject. [blue line doesn't compute - try google> Canada Metal]
try> Canada Metal Memo to Rocna Customers re Brand Confidence
(CMP mentions in this 'memo' that they have cleaned up and rearranged the furniture in the RocnaAnchor website. Haven't checked, I get Rocna Reflux whenever I go there. ebb has had it with this sordid subject - and unless something spectacular happens will drop it completely.......):Dyea!

ahhh yes, one more little twist:
Here also is a clarification from PeterSmith blaming it all on us and the mags:
google> Rocna re-licensing & historical steel quality issues - Peter Smith.net.nz<
[another blue line that won't work: www.petersmith.net.nz>Anchors & Anchoring]

At the end of the statement in which 'Peter' says "Some of the public controversy has been prompted by pictures of Rocnas with bent shanks....some of these are legitimate cases...." he talks of the steel grade changes, including those of HoldFast's: "...the appropriate chain for the anchor will fail completely before the shank is even close to starting to bend. These figures are compatible with the standards of Peter's design and engineering of the Rocna anchor, and lateral (sidewise bending) strength is similarly considered perfectly acceptable."

There is a HoldFast era U-tube video also on site showing a 55# "off the shelf" China anchor being tested in a chain pull cabinet in the China facility. The anchor tip is clamped and led 180degrees in the opposite direction from three types of unseen/hidden test chain connected to the shank in 3 separate pulls, indicated with a prominent digital counter. Not entirely clear what is happening but near the end, at some way-over-tonnage of a normal test pull, the anchor inside the chamber suddenly burps:

The lid is lifted revealing the shank which is now radically twisted. NOT bent, but twisted in line with the pull!
This is a straight-pull procedure that seems not only to be testing chain but also the shank to fluke connection. This doesn't seem to have been the point of the demo. BUT it does prove that bending or twisting of the shank can happen BEFORE THE CHAIN FAILS.
and WITHOUT LATERAL BENDING.
In this case with what for all intents is an inhouse non-authenticated anchor. So NOTHING is being proved. It shows THIS PARTICULAR 55# ANCHOR, has a fluke to shank connection that is phenomenol - if indeed it really is!!!
Peter evidently has included this video to show "that lateral strength [of the Bambury HoldFast] is similarly considered perfectly acceptable." (But that didn't happen.)
This demo shows that, even without sidewise chain pulling the shank twisted and bent, and no chain broke. Perfectly Acceptable? looking into the torture chamber through the camera's eye it did look like the anchor was still in one piece, so it must be Peter's opinion that its STRENGTH is acceptable.

BUT he is in denial about the bending - which is what the international hullabaloo is all about!
He intimates, almost accuses, that some photos of bent Rocnas wouldn't naturally bend as shown and were deliberately mangled to embarrass him, "the Rocna Anchor Designer."
Wonder where Peter gets his bent anchor expertise from?

That's amazing: bent shanks 'perfectly acceptable.'? Yes, the author IS talking about the tested strength of the metal. But since bent shanks ARE turning up with nasty photos on the forums then we must conclude it's the engineering that's at fault.
Since the engineering is faultless,
then obviously the users are doing something wrong when bending the perfectly acceptable shank, in most cases they're probably doing it "illegitimate"ly.
Since we have to assume yachts' chain did not break while bending the Rocna shanks - then the chain must have been oversized or somehow inappropriate for the anchor - which is just not fair.
Must be ACCO chain that bent those Rocna shanks, not CMP chain, which complements the CMP Rocna product. They are 'in the fold together!'
Rest assured, a folded Rocna is still a safe anchor. Without a boat attached to it.

This "re-licensing and historical steel... STATEMENT" site contains blue line links that take you directlty to PeterSmith's historical scathing putdowns of the MansonSupreme, and Sarca. Hell of an attitude, man!
He and his alter ego forum ghost no doubt are still in the mix.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________
garbage is still garbage. ebb said that
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________
Its a shame
Its a shame
I always seem to reach you out of time
Its a shame
I always meet you when it's just goodbye........baby it's a shame.

last verse of a song by another Peter Smith (Danish singer)

ebb

10-19-2011, 09:47 AM

(OK, I promised....
How darkly spectacular is it that Rocna finagled the specs on all their galvanized anchors BUT also all their ritzy stainless anchors.)
Take a look:
Under the title: Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
The thread has grown to 40 pages!

Most interesting and even more important is the revelation that Rocna stainless steel anchors
were also (if proven true) deceptively downgraded when fabricated in China.

Grant King ("no longer associated with Rocna") a contributor in the Yachting Monthly forum, has to me, really a very casual observor, emerged as the
Daniel Ellsberg of the Rocna Deception.
He is, like the Pentagon Papers guy, uniquely placed in this deception because he HAS ALL THE PAPER supporting the fraud. Dates, personel, sales receipts...
Venture that like the famous whistle blower there is a moral aspect to this drama.

In bits and pieces you might wonder what all the bruhaha is about.
'Peter' is previously quoted saying there's nothing wrong with his downgrade anchors.
To me the extent and depth of the fraud, like the Pentgon Papers, surpasses the denials and carefull words of the perpetraitors.
Every anchor made, INCLUDING STAINLESS STEEL, all downgraded in materials used and, as I have just read (10/19/11) including downgraded fabrication

PeterSmith's opening salvo putting the MansonSupreme down was the use of 'laminated' metal.
That means sandwiching plates together and welding the edges - a techinique that Smith says is cheap, unprofessional engineering.
The fabricating expertise of the chinese workers when laminating shank plates together is so good that when finished the welded lamination is erased/hiddof the shanks. And not mentioned to the buyer. That's what's being said.

Well, there it is, folks. The Smith engine makes and markets anchors that are despised by the 'designer of the Rocna anchor'.

This stainless Rocna revelation shows how contrived the PeterSmith "1st October 2011 Statement" really is. Contrived, because his attempt to downplay his downgrading of the anchor is only within what has been revealed SO FAR in the 'recalls' and the forums. A complete Statement might have included the stainless steel anchors, but did not. Why? Because that little bit of deception had not been revealed yet. Right? Hopefully an individual stainless steel Rocna anchor customer wouldn't find out that his significant purchase secretely had had a grade change.
Same come back from 'Peter' will appear...that the anchors are far above RINA standards for the purpose of the anchor, etc.
I don't believe Rocna has authentic RINA approval.

Despise the attitude that makes this deception possible. In fact, it is so treacherous it is unbelievable to me. Maybe the changes aren't all that bad, BUT, you don't adhoc change anything if you claim to have approval from an acency that approves anchors. Or flog standards that are superior than your compeditors. The way it is done by Rocna: is fraud, it's lying, it's deception perpetrated upon the public. A very special fraternity of 'public'.
Are you really OK with this???
The entire Rocna product line made to standards below (how far below remains to be revealed) standards advertised./guaranteed.

Why would Canada Metals Pacific want to deal with this?
That is why I believe this CMP buy out is just another LIE by the Smiths.
'I designed this anchor and I can do with it whatever I please - whenever I want!'

Attitude played a huge part, imco.
My opinion is: The Rocna should be terminated.
If anything it's Nothing but bad news.

ebb

10-20-2011, 02:03 PM

[Sorry to interrupt more important and mundane boat business - especially since the discussion here has been, shall we say, rather slow.]

There isn't anything of greater importance to the safety of the boat than good anchors.

www.ybw.com/forums/index
yachtingandboatworldforums
[sorry, blue line doesn't compute]

click on Yachting Monthly's Scuttlebutt
scroll to Rocna anchor.......

If you are patient and at all curious, by reading and scanning this amazing 42pg discussion
you will have a frontrow seat of the King Rocna event (altho he never shows up) that almost compares with King Lear. A Brit comedy.
Not as bloody, not written by a master, and not as good with metaphor -
but the pathos, the human drama is superb: passion, short-comings, treachery...
If you have read any of my comments above here you have then a prelude into a twisted
and misleading mystery of subterfuge, hypocrisy, errors in judgement. Just about everything
you'd never expect to find in the crumbling of a small and unique commercial enterprise.

Many characters appear,
some suddenly, some go off stage left never to be heard from again. Why did they take part?
One of the main characters from the beginning is RocnaOne who throughout the story never identifies herself.
She has an important role (imco the dsguised character is really female, or in drag, and there are very few of those in this testosteroyal morality play) because she appears to be the voice of the new acquiring owner, CMP (big on anodes), she is expected to reveal details how the unfolding take over of the empire is greased, yet never seems to develop the cajones to talk with conviction. But...but.....but read more of the babble, you'll see!
Clowns appear, and idiots come on stage attempting to sabotoge things.
Some will come on stage holding an anchor (if it was Shakespeare, it would be a rubber sword) asking the audience, what do I do with this?
Others praise the absent and desparate Rocna, others put him down. He is condemned and saved by the Rocna's fool, his wisest councellor, who is also called King.
Ahhhh hh, but this king's fool, will he be the one to bring the kingdom down?

Although the story probably continues to a just end,
poor judgement and the insanity of the main performers
(who all the while other actors are busy on stage are actually writhing in the backdrop wrapped in chains
too spooked to appear front and center) will prevail. They will prevail, but as mere ghosts of what they once were.
CMP (big on anodes) is left holding the bag... as the stage lights dim and the play comes to a close......or doesn't.

Imco we haven't ever witnessed anything quite like this.

In the world of business what has happened/happening is truly amazing. Do we have some power after all?
[last edit 10/21/11]

Main stand out actors on the Scuttlebut stage:
Grant King (post 255) (breathtaking posts at 357, 358.)
wise Djbangi &
Delfin, trawlerman:D

(audience applause)

ebb

10-23-2011, 09:33 AM

"21-10-11/17:12
Natalie Davies - Administrator
sticky Rocna thread pulled

I have suspended the thread entitled
'Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific'
while we consult our legal advisor on the implications of some of the posts.

While we are investigating this issue please refrain from
starting any new threads on Rocna Anchors.
Thanks
Natalie Davies
YBW Editor"
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________
That is a quote from the Brit Yachting Monthly site.
(and this is my opinion)
Imco opinions by posters who use anchors on their boats have every right to post those opinions, whether they be anonymous or business owners who are not advertisng their services on the public thread.
For the most part nearly all of the negative comments by individuals are intelligent, thoughtful, honest and not subjectively inflamatory. They are however commenting on and revealing what appears to be a shocking on-going long-term deception by a commercial anchor maker. And they shake their verbal fingers. So what's legal here?
The guy with the goods, the guy who says he has all the paper proof from day one for the Mocna deception,
warned forum readers that these revelations would become more surprising than we could imagine.
I would guess that any legal concerns by the magazine rests on this.
But imco since all the posts are in fact opinion, then what we have here is the marine industry stepping in to control a situation that to them has gotten out of hand.
I would guess some Yachting Monthly advertisers are having a big problem with Mocna's public freefall.
It could happen to them.
And in the public arena they have no control.
Good god we could have a revolution here!!!
NO gathering in the streets - OR in pubs - OR the marinas!

I'm guessing that The YBW as a private commercial enterprise that hosts a forum for subscribers have gotten a bunch of emails and phone calls from concerned advertisers.
We can guess who.
It'll be instructive how they handle this from here on in. But the thread is censored/gone.
They also have a public image to uphold with their subscribers, let alone their advertisers.
And it could be worse than I, as an observor, can imagine.

There is a lot at stake here.
The people in charge no doubt want desparately to put the fire out.
They want to put the situation into their own words. For that they want control. Smoke and mirrors.
Anyone can understand that.
But censorship on the www is a very sharp double-edged sword.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________
EDIT. Sometimes revolutions become one liners - check out:
Anchors away then (4 pages)

same address.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________
Another refrain titled:
Open note to RocnaOne (4 pages)

After some bickering, on the last page, one entry by Grant King announcing he is taking Rocna to court in NZ next month! Not sure who or what kind of suit? Like HECATE, goddess of the crossroads, it's a three-headed monster. One bent body, 3 heads.
[[later EDIT] on page 5 above, GKing has a newer post where it is evident that he was accused of wrong doing concerning money by BamburyHoldFast, so he's taking him/them to court to clear his name. In that process maybe a timeline will appear that will reveal the truth about who knew what, and did what, and when. The why always turns out to be greed.] From the nature of the lawsuit it may turnout that spec changes to the Rocna are not illegal. But certainly UNETHICAL.

Interesting,
believe I read that SteveBambury/HoldFast was hired on as an ADVISOR at CMP ! ! ! Could not possibly be true?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________
Ethics vs Morality.
Used morality/morals here myself interchangably with ethics, because morality is more commonly used everyday.
Ethics are universal long standing principles concerning right and wrong.
Morals/morality are short term subjective values that support good and bad/evil.
Personal, simplistic short version of this is that ethics is what business wrestles with in public
and morality is what religion requires subjects to support. The borders separating the two are overlapping and blurred.
The Rocna drama is absolutely in the realm of right vs wrong. There is no sin in being wrong.
There is no equivocation in wrong. There is nothing personal or subjective in being wrong.
The squirming of the main characters in this drama and their reps is because they want us to see their wrong doing in a subjective light where it can be heated up and argued about and disintegrated into name calling and so forth. By contrast most of the posters are aware of the distinction and are quick to point out that the main characters seem unable to restrain themselves.
ROCNA DID WRONG. The record is emerging. This is about how business is conducted.

ebb

10-31-2011, 10:22 AM

ybw.com
Rocna Anchor acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
Yachting Monthly's Scuttlebut

The censoring began at around page 45 - the thread is back again! Lawyer approval???
and has burgeoned to 54 pgs at present, 10/31/11. I'm totally surprised and gratified. Relieved. So the drama continues:

Big guns still posting: Rigger, Delfin, Djbangi, Fishy Inverness, Grant Smith and even Rex Francis (whose SARCA shanks are now Bisplate 80!)
What a convention! Reasonable, intelligent writing. Great reading, like a mystery story: surprises, turns, revelations.
New people, there's a US lawyer now posted with tips on who's actually responsible for the counterfeit china anchors.
More stink on the Peter and Craig Smith black hole - and some beginning ruminations on whether CMP is really going to pull it off. Their secret spokeperson seems to have lost it.

I'm a great fan of Brit mystery shows on TV.
This is the real thing. Real bad guys. Who did it? Who's to blame?
There is nothing better than this currently.
If you have the time, post your opinion here!
Haven't read much of the new stuff, gotta go.

paulsproesser

11-06-2011, 01:39 PM

We should make a habit to always buy american made products.

ebb

11-06-2011, 04:32 PM

Mr Paul,
Can't think of any, but I'm not in the know on that,
there may be somebody making new gen anchors here in the U S of A.
We seem to lack the moxie - or the venture capital.

They'd be imported from China anyway.

Then, there would be no gaurantee we'd have a complementary cast of sleazy bad guys,
Nor an entertaining forum of savvy head hunters to pin them barstids to the wall!:D

ebb

01-06-2012, 09:38 AM

The Yachting Monthly Scuttlebut site 'Rocna Anchor acquired by Canadian Metal Pacific' continues to flouirsh. ybw has reinstated the original thread that started this TRIAL BY FORUM (as I see it.) I know very little of the internet, but this 1250 post (and running) condemnation of a deceitfully marketed marine product on a pubic forum seems really unique.
Copy a couple quotes from that forum to round us up to date:

EVIDENCE OF CMP FALSIFYING RINO SHHP CERTIFICATION ON ROCNA WEBSITE
Poster 'saumur2 - #1250 [quoting Grant King} "The certificate on the Rocna website here (website blue line) now says under applicant CMP and not Holdfast [who are in bankruptcy] but still dated 25 may 2011 and stamped the same as previous. It also says for "rolled steel plate fluke."'
[As we know, all yacht-chandlery china Rocnas have cast flukes - NOT fabricated steel - and the original CMP statement of their new ownership of the Rocna license said that they would continue to have the same - Bambury/Holdfast - anchors made in china with a shank of less spec than originally designed by P. Smith.] brackets are mine
saumur2 continues:
'It would appear that this is the first proof that CMP are colluding with the deception - surely they know that the anchor that RINA tested and approved is very much different to those being produced now.'

At post Neeves #1253 there is a full page wrap up bringing another onsite poster up to date on the subject:
Two paragraphs from the lengthy post:
'More recently we have seen a change. On the Rocna website we have seen the RINA certification claim restated (which has led to RINA querying CMP and requesting a clarification or removal of the claim - as it is invalid). We have seen the perpetrators of the deceits paraded at international trade fairs, METS is a good example, as if heroes instead of the pariahs as they are seen by many of the public. Though it is difficult to quantify there are indications the deceit of the use of a low quality steel in the shank extends to more than "a few" and to a period much earlier than "early 2010" - but confirmation is difficult and CMP unwilling (for whatever reason) to provide any confirmation. By and large owners of these, possibly, off spec anchors remain unaware and at risk.'
'It is impossible to know what is happening but the recent re-statement (on the Rocna website) of the RINA certification awarding SHHP status to Rocna anchors from 4kg to 110kg is so blatantly dishonest that it is almost as if CMP have lost control. The certification clearly states that it refers only to anchors with fabricated flukes (made from folded and welded steel plate) yet if you walk into any chandlers these anchors simply do not exist - the only anchors have cast flukes. The certificate might apply to anchors of 55kg and over, but these tend not to be in stock at chandlers and form a minimal part of historic Rocna sales. Maybe purchasers are meant to know the difference, but RINA does not think so and most people on this and other forum do not think so.'
Neeves goes on to say that the public has continued to be misled as the new owner has 'developed a low profile.'
Steve Bambury CEO of the bankrupt Rocna Holdfast Co is retained by CMP in what capacity we can only guess. My thinking is that he is there as a consultant - as are P. and C Smith. It may be a sort of control CMP wants over the situation by incorporating these bad eggs in one Rocna basket.
At the moment their silence, which declaws critics by giving them nothing to grab with, is no longer golden but smelling bad rotten.

As one poster pointed out, what also is sad is that so many [boat-owners] have their heads in the sand.
Some people don't want bad news, they're in denial: it's all BS, or it's just too complicated. Those who willing go to WM and other stores to buy a Rocna - still in stock and available ( still cataloged as well) - deserve the Darwin Award.

CMP has obviously taken legal counsel and choose not to say anything - positive or negative - about the controversy. They know it will all blow over. They and P.Smith are content with marketing a lesser anchor (in BOTH SHANK & FLUKE) than the original NZ made models. They are OK with deceiving the public with false RINA certification - which will mature into more negative publicity if they do not seek new RINA certification. RINA certainly will decline SHHP certification because the china made anchors will fail new tests. There was an admission of bribery - during the Bambury iicensing era - that I don't have time to research and confirm right now. You know, like aye say, it's the smell of it!

Many have given CMP the benefit of the doubt. I can't accept anything about this fraud. Can't accept that CMP would appear to continue the fraud. Can't accept that a total recall of all Holdfast Rocna Anchors has not been implemented. There oughta be a law. Can't accept that the same anchors continue to be made in china. There's no GrantKing to keep an eye on stuff. Can't believe that Rocna anchors are still being sold, and bought at marine stores, advertised on many marine websites as if nothing is happening. No honest attempt has been made to warn 1000s of people who bought fraudulent anchors that they and their vessels are at risk.
Why is this happening? Why is this still happening? This is a definition of UNETHICAL. A conspiracy of fraud by all Rocna parties.

SPADE DOES ROLLBARS
Spade anchors have introduced two new models, both with roll bars.
Presumably one is a copy of the Rocna - called 'Spoon'.
The other a copy of the Manson Supreme - called 'Seablade'.**
SAIL mag who reports this in their Jan2012 issue on page 28 with a photo, says,
"Both hooks are constructed in galvanized steel on an automated production line, which allows them to be priced competatively with more cheaply made anchors from Asia, From $239." Sounds scary, doesn't it?
There you go, anchors made by robots. Probably made by cheap chinese robots.
(** type Spade Spoon / Seablade into google and a site will come up. Small pictures, garbled hype, no RINO certs, no metal specs. First impression, when you compare either imitation to the rocna or supreme anchor, you'll see that the imitations are really awful. They actually look amateurish and rediculous. And the persentation insincere.) imco they are more than slightly mad.
It is hard to believe these anchors are real and not a SPOOF. They might be put out as a joke by Spade.

SPOON VS BLADE
I'm still convinced that NON-spoon CURVED BLADE anchors are the more versatile design than those with a cupped top, more likely to penetrate grass, more likely to stay embedded under tension, more likely to turn while embedded, more likely to be easier to retrieve and come up up clean. Just my observation. More similar designs hopefully will force competitors (Supreme included) to tune up their designs and upgrade. imco Manson Supreme still is the best of the claws. And I really like the dandy carrying handle!
CMP, a Canadian company, who originally confessed they were looking for a complimentary anchor for their line of presumably asia made chain, should cut Rocna loose to shrivel up and die.... and go with French Spade's cheap copies. Make a deal and flog both styles, spoon and knife. (and stop forking the public with Rocna junk.

In the meantime

DON'T BUY A ROCNA ANCHOR. Your life depends on it!

ebb

01-10-2012, 01:05 PM

These new anchors by Spade have progressed beyond "prototype" stage when we first saw them, see
Cruisers and Sailing Forums Sword anchors

The prototypes appeared at boatshows from about Feb 2010.
imco there's no logic for these anchors to be produced - progressed is a non-operative word -
unless it's marketed for buyers to have something on their anchor rack that appears fashionable and modern - but cheap.
'Prototype' would refer to a newly invented anchor, but the Spade Spoon and Seablade are entirely derivitive.

SPOON
The Spoon is as FLAT AS A CREPE with an approx 22 degree up bend at the back of the blade.
As someone points out it has more Bugel/Wasi heritage than a Supreme. Suggest SPATULE as more appropriate pet name.

SEABLADE
The Seablade is actually SPOON shaped. If you held the fluke horizontal it would hold water (and mud.)
You can find better photos at: ancre seablade SB9 Sea Tech and Fun Europe. It looks like a welded together Spade ( and it has no under-structure like the original shank-to-fluke bolt together Spade) but comes with the stylish bow handle. One of the photos is a view of the Seablade from center back: maybe it's my glasses but looks to me like the shank has a crank in it already, like a chinesey Rocna. Looks like you buy it already pre-bent.
It's relationship to Rocna is more incidental than inspired. In keeping with the 'S' first letter theme, suggest renaming this one: mon SHOVEL'.

They are being robotically assembled in Tunesia where the now obsolete Oceane and Sword anchors were once made.
Don't know where hoopless Spades are manufactured, probably Tunesia. Spades are well thought of and have satisfied fans. Hard to get in the US.

There is a commercial spokesman on the Cruisers and Sailing forum (SA/USA) who says the Seablade & Spoon are now
"available to the weekend sailer and fisherman."
Guess he says that they aren't manufactured as full time anchors, only good for two days a week, and not the work week at that.

This is unique marketing hype. A fashionable looking anchor designed to be used as a lunch hook.
Materials ae not mentioned. NO RINA OR LLOYDS CERTIFICATION. Available in the 15 - 45lb range.

BALIVERNES !
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
[continued from the last post on pg 9]
*Yachting and Boating World Forums - Rocna Anchors acquired by Canadian Metals Pacific - www.ybw.com/forums
You'll find it under 'Yachting Monthly's Scuttlebut'
see GrantKing post #977 for his response to an internal poster about what happened with his lawsuit. He was counter-sued & accused (by Bambury, in response to, I believe, Grant King instigating a legal claim for $80,000 to $90,000 owed to him by Holdfast) of stealing cash that was to be used to pay invoices from RINA. The bribery charge stems from the illogic that anyone instead of using a bank transfer would take CASH from N.Z. into China to pay (pay off?) RINA. RINA is an Italian certification service that bestows SHHP to anchors that pass their tests.
The implication of bribery is serious. It is not clear what actually happened. Not clear from Grant King what actually happened. Bambury's Rocna/ Holdfast Co. is now liquidated. GrantKing who was Bambury/Holdfast's China operations manager will not recover money owed.
Super High Holding Power is what every commercial anchor maker wants his anchors to have as a selling point. Obviously the maker has to pay the certifier for the classification service. Many anchors are not SHHP classified. And there are other certifiers like Lloyds.

My opinion is that there should be a special certification consolation category called SDLH for the specifation downgraded CMP/Rocna's now being sold fraudulantly with implied RINA SHHP certification on their site. A 25lb CMP/Rocna might be certified as a Super Duper Lunch Hook.

I believe that a third (or fourth party) has to unravel this briney tale of anchor huckstering. It's time.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________
ROCNA home page
Just visited what appears to me, a long time non-visitor, Rocna's newly polished website. There, looking into Rocna's RINA claims, you discover they do claim to have 2008 SHHP for anchors from 121lb to 243lb. But NO RINA SHHP FOR THE WHOLE LOWER WEIGHT RANGE. They are "in the process of updating RINA for Rocna originals." The RINA certs they have dates from 2008 when China manufacturing began and New Zealand made anchors shut down. Certification would end after a certain specified time period - but no doubt become invaid any time materials and processes changed.

I cannot find what they mean by "Rocna originals" unless they INTEND to go back to "rolled steel plate shank to rolled steel plate fluke." The smaller CMP/Rocna anchors are all made with chinese cast iron flukes - which CMP/Rocna says they will continue. Did not see an explaination of what is meant by originals. They do say that "mechanical testing" was done by RINA in Shanghai dated 5/25/2011.* BUT it is not clear just what anchors (of what date) were tested - OR what is meant by "mechanical testing". I'd guess "original Rocna's" wants the buzz phrase to be mis-interpreted to mean original New Zealand Rocna's made by New Zealanders in New Zealand. Remember also that Bis 80 type steel for the shank was original to the original N.Z. Ronca. [Cast iron flukes are cast iron, but if they intend to be original, cast iron flukes could be seen as cast iron intending to be rolled steel.:D] CMP/Rocna may be trying to say they are getting the cast fluke anchors certified SHHP - by somebody.

Did not see hype on the site as to what anchor metal specs are now being marketed by CMP/Rocna.
But they clearly know that if they mention SHHP enough times fools will simply associate the acronym with all CMP/Rocna anchors.
It's easy to see how uninformed buyers will be impressed and sucked-in visiting the website. And easy as well to see that CMP owns the subterfuge. It's possible that CMP/Rocna is trying to say they are not going to get RINA SHHP cerification for the cast fluke range of anchors. So what does it matter?
Buyer beware. ROCNA HAS NO RINA CERTIFICATION FOR SHHP IN SMALL TO MEDIUM YACHT SIZE RANGE ANCHORS.

I hope interested sailors keep on this case.
It is time now for boat owners worldwide to lobby for a new big time, real time, unbiased comparison test between all popular anchors.

Bye. Sincerely intend to leave this subject fester and let it be. Done for now!:(
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________
*A picture of this certification document appears on P.Smith's website. The 'Applicant is Canada Metals (Pacific) Limited.' The 'Manufacturer is Shanghai Pangtong Business Enterprise Development Co, Ltd.' Given the strange 'current' date for 'approval' (5/25/2011 valid until 5/24/2016) which certainly appears way out of sync with the certification process stated in the document of anchors seabed tested at Auchland N.Z. 12/3/2008, that is for anchors with >rolled steel shanks welded to rolled steel blades< that subsequently had 'mechanical tests' at Shanghai 1/18-19/2011..... IMCO the document is counterfeit. Or procured fraudulently by Canada Metal (Pacific) Limited as stated on the 'Approval Certificate' dated as in the second sentence above. without actual testing by RINA.
It may be that RINA actually has rescinded all their Rocna Certifications and this is a fake interim document until CMP Global buys some sort of certification to boost sales. There is no proof for this, except what I've downloaded. 'Applicable Anchor Weights are for 4.1kg range to 110.0 kg'. Those are the common yacht anchors chandleries stock and catalog, that we all are talking about here. Except those anchors NOW for sale are NOT the anchors described in this certification. 'Approved Drawings (NOT shown) are dated 6/26/2009, 3/17/2010.' The paragraph on top of the 'applicable anchor weights' specifies that "Fabricated SHHP anchors with rolled steel plate shank welded to rolled steel plate fluke..." are what the approval certificate is specifically for,
IN MY OPINION THIS IS A POORLY ALTERED CUT-AND-PASTE FRAUD, PROBABLY PECULIAR TO THE P.SMITH SITE. THE ONLY REASON FOR BEING THERE IS AS A RUSE TO CONVINCE UNWARY VISITORS TO THE WEBSITE THAT ROCNA ANCHORS HAVE RINA SHHP CERTIFICATION. NOT SO. The hype on the website says the anchors are "SHHP type". BUT THEY ARE NOT TESTED BY RINA.
NOT A SINGLE CHINA ROCNA HAS SHHP APPROVAL CERTIFICATION - ESPECIALLY FROM RINA.
There can be no other explanation for this document to exist and apparently validated by a RINA rep whose name is on the document.

ebb

01-25-2012, 04:29 PM

google>
Rocna Anchors - Recently Acquired By CMP Global - Announces ...
>
nasailor.com/ .../rocna-anchors-recently-acquired-by-cmp-global-ann...

These addresses are verbatim off a google first page to my prompt: rocna anchor warrenty. (sic)

This is a second party announcement of a new "lifetime" warranty that includes the bending of shanks - 1/24/12 (yesterday at this writing.)
ALSO find the complete warranty info on the Rocna home page and note that the bending and deformation quarantees are there also.
Ifs, ands, and buts are spelled out seemingly in detail - complete with lawyered list of can'ts and don'ts - it requires study.
Make your own judgement on this new bending and deformation promise the new owners of the manufacturing licence are putting forth.
CMP have yet to make a statement of their own, that I have come across. They seem to like to appear being quoted from a distance.

Warranties once we just glanced at. Now we better study the deal befor we purchase.

The media newsite is called: north american sailor. New to me, and imco new to the internet.
On the face of it, given Rocna's many undenyable recent failures, and the furor on many forums, not only the Yachting Monthly Scuttlebut,
this seems like an unusually obscure venue to announce such an extraordinary quarantee.
Maybe there will be more. Certainly on the Roccna site.

Don't care what the outcome is.
This is still an outfit that has chosen cheap steel and cheap foreign labor to make their product.
Their problems have come about because they chose that route, and imco still make anchors of questionable authenticity and provenance.

Hope you find it.
What's your take?

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________
Later EDIT
Since August 2011, when this began, Rocna and CMP and Holdfast have essentially been silent on the internet, except for sometimes appearing on public forums, disquised as gormless mouthpieces, trying to plug a few tongues into the leaking dike. The main press have been disinterested in this as a story. Except Practical Sailor who published two timely informative articles. Only one b&m chandlery has done anything about the deception and that relatively insignificant. P.Smith tried unsuccessfully to mend things on his web page, and managed to be seen as lying to the world.
By and large this controversy has been an internet event.
One online chandlery I was dealing with, that stocked Rocnas, had not been informed by anybody. sailboatowners.com have now removed Rocnas from their catalog. THEY DID THE RIGHT THING in the interest of sailboat owners! ...But they don't stock Supremes!
Only hearsy has been active, bad news gets around. But the vast majority of consumers haven't been, aren't being, informed directly by anybody who should have their safety foremost. The marine press should be held responsible for not investigating and reporting. There has been no recall of limp china Rocnas by the new responsible owner/manufacturer, CMP, that were manufactured in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011.

BUSINESS AS USUAL AND BOAT OWNERS BE DAMNED.
And CMP/Rocna goes forward as if nothing has happened and everything is just peachy! West Marine continues to stock and sell china-Rocnas. But we read they do have trouble keeping Supremes in stock!
There are skippers out of the internet loop (or out of touch cruising) that don't know they have a time-bomb at end of the rode.
If anything positive comes from this, imco it primaryly will have been the work of persistent ybw posters on Yachting Monthly's Scuttlebut forms.
In an era where transparancy garners trust and respect, Rocna, CMP and Holdfast, taken together, have been about as open and opaque as a black hole. They have no respect for their customers. How can there be any respect for them?

TOO MANY BAD ANCHORS
CMP/ROCNA HAS NO REPUTATION except for promises in a warranty. You use the anchor first, risk your life, test the warranty.
For reality cruising you better have a better anchor or two in reserve because a bent shank probably won't reset or be usable again. Especially in a blow.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________
Craig, Thanks for your thoughts - and the blue line link - in your following post, #183. I totally concur that it's all about damage control!;)
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________

Graig, so what the hell, your boat is holed on the rocks, but after you ship the bent Rocna back to where you bought it, you'll get the money back, Right? That is if you can prove you have used it within warranty restrictions. Yes, I can see it now, a personal letter from the designer PeterSmith...."Gidday Rocna owner, sorry for your loss, but we have determined our anchor could not have deformed under the conditions you have stated, therefor....."

c_amos

01-25-2012, 07:10 PM

.....

Hope you find it.
What's your take?

Well, here is the link. (http://nasailor.com/2012/01/24/rocna-anchors-recently-acquired-by-cmp-global-announces-extended-warranty/)

It sounds like typical damage control to me, from a company that knows it has acquired a defective product.

What good is the warranty to you when your boat is blown up on the rocks?

... I hate to sound like this, but I am afraid that anyone who would trust their boat to a Rocna at this point pretty much deserves what they get...

ebb

01-30-2012, 10:02 AM

What is that about 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating?'
Or maybe 'the devil's in the details....'

Somebody on the ybm Scuttlebut site points out that Peter Smith

on his sailboat cruiser carries New Zealand made Rocnas.

Right on, brother!

ebb

01-30-2012, 01:35 PM

(pg 38 - 39) This is a quote:
"CONSUMER ALERT
Federal Laws require marine manufacturers to issue defect recall notices
when boats or related equipment contain 'defects which create a substantial risk
of personal injury' or when they don't comply with boat-manufacturing regulations.
The U.S. Coast Guard recently published the following defect recall notices.
For more information about these campaigns, contact the manufacturers directly
or call the Coast Guard Boating Product Assurance Division, 202-372-1073.
New recalls are listed at the BoatUS National Recall Alert Registry,
www.BoatUS.com/recall."

So there is no self-policing by marine manufacturer's association or even a third party consumer group that looks after the public. It takes the U.S. Government to do the job. Tax dollars at work.
Two products: Perko plastic gasoline deck fills, where tightening a screw causes the plastic body to crack. [Did NOT find the Coast Guard recall notice, but did find a Perko recall notice from May 2011. The deck fills are an integrally molded plastic vent and fill combo with round metalic caps. You will have to locate a small molded-in date button under the flange on the fixture, even if it's already installed! and return it to Florida.:D]
And another: Volvo Penta gasoline engines. Wash water introduced into the throttle body during manufacture corrodes sensors causing high rpm when the controls are locked in neutral.

BoatUS then says:
"Marine manufacturers occasionally conduct voluntary recalls,
including the following, not overseen by the U.S. Coast Guard."
(here are two more)
>Meridian Sedans with 'higher-than-desired concentrations of exhaust emissions' in the transom seating area.
[What is the desired concentration of carbon monoxide???]
>Mustang Survival Issues, IPFDs. Inconsistent inflator that doesn't fully inflate device. Inspection and repair only performed at a Mustang Survival factory. [ drowned customers are unprofitable]
So these guys VOLUNTARILY (was there a pending threat by the Feds that forced them into a voluntary recall?)
decided to FIX something that was obviously pretty dangerous to the digits in their business plan. Glad for that!
But as Craig might say, it's all about damage control. Yes it is. How about a juicey class action? The Mustang recall return should be entirely cost free for the PFD owner, even tho the recall is 'voluntary'. Is it?
Does a PFD owner have any right to expect the device to be fail-safe after the warranty expires?

BETTER CHECK YOUR MUSTANG 22LB PFDs,
[ a quick look on google using the prompt >Mustang PFD recall< proves otherwise on the "voluntary recall." U.S. COAST GUARD ISSUED THE RECALL - which can be quickly confirmed by going to the USCG web site. "All MD2010 and MD2012 22LB bouyancy inflatables without the stampted MIT logo (you must go to the Coast Guard site & confirm) should be returned to the Mustang Survival factory for inspection."
Indeed, IF it is true that Mustang Survival had to be encouraged in any way by the Coast Guard to implement the recall,
THAT is totally outrageous, unethical & sick. Like the Rocna thing, if it's true, it's unbelievable!]
*about 10 years ago BoatUS became a wholly owned subsidiary of West Marine.

ROCNA never made the first half of this short recall list. No, they aren't on the Consumer Alert list in the BoatUS magazine. The now over 6 month old Rocna bait-and-switch fraud is not news worthy enough for a mention in the mag. "BoatU.S. -Taking Care of Boaters for Over 45 Years"*
The anchors never made it to the "defects which create a substantial risk of personal injury" level.
Maybe it's because the anchors are imported from China and not registered with the Feds.
Anchoring is still a pretty mysterious exercise. And anchors themselves not understood by anybody anyway. U.S. Coast Guard doesn't recall anchors.
Of course that's more complicated than driving a screw and cracking a cheap plastic fuel-fill - which requires a compulsory recall - BY THE MILITARY ARM OF THE U.S.GOVERNMENT. Insane!
U.S. Customs ought to confiscate any China Rocna anchor shipment at port of entry - purposefully crank their shanks and scrap them.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________
later EDIT 2/15/12
The Yachting Monthly Scuttlebut forum can be reached by www.ybw.com/forums. Cursor the menu on Scuttlebut.
You'll be faced then with a huge menu of threads. You'll find the "Rocna Acquired by CMP......" currently on page three about half way down the list. [EDIT-now on page one]
The thread has reached 1700 posts and is currently on page 170. A poster, Neeves, points out that the new West Marine print catalog advertises that CMP/Rocna Anchors are RINA SHHP certified. {Haven't personally checked that out, if so it's fraudulent and a downright lie} An earlier post discloses that Bambury has been terminated by CMP. Damage Control and the Almighty Buck.

CapnK

02-28-2012, 06:57 PM

Ran across this article describing some tests done in October of '11, thought she might be a pertinent link to post here:

http://billspringer.blogspot.com/2011/03/which-anchor-holds-best-14-anchors-are.html

Summation:

Excellent (these anchors consistently held to or close to 5,000 pounds at several different locations and scopes and could also be stowed easily on a bow roller or in a locker)
Fortress
Manson
Hydrobubble
Rocna
Spade

Good (these anchors set held over 1000 pounds)
Bullwagga
Delta
Oceane
Sarca
Wasi

Poor (these anchors failed to produce quantifiable results)
Claw
CQR
West Marine Performance 20
XYZ

ebb

02-28-2012, 10:51 PM

Hiya Kurt,
thanks for posting that blueline!

Interesting that while it seems to be a current dated article - it really is a word for word copy of an older one -
from the last major comparison test sponsored by West Marine and Yachting Monthly in 2006.
Could recognize it from the writing. And the "52' 92,000lb research vessel, Shana Rae" that did the pulling.
Think the Rocna mob has anything to do with planting this?

Yachting Monthly's December 2006 publication of the results, still on the internet, is the more organized and interesting with lots of pics.
And there's that same graph Craig Smith waggled in our faces in the heyday of Rocna's rise. And still on their website, altered, I believe.

The Rocna being compared then was out of New Zealand, since the test was a couple years befor Rocna hustled off to China.

Naturally want to see new tests. Been 7 years. IT IS ABOUT TIME.
Comparisons that will place current China Rocnas with cast flukes and changed spec shanks (a completely different anchor from the original)
in the arena with other contemporary anchors. Mocna hype sells their Chinese made anchors as "original". Obviously an out-n-out lie.
They make their vendors repeat this lie. It's a P. Smith deceit, and because it exists as a lie, it is corrupt, and there is no logic that
we should trust this anchor.

But the usual suspects have also changed, and a second go-round with some brutal testing, even if done today as it was in 2006,
would make the outcome fairer for all anchors, more info for us.
And hopefully introduce us to some very interesting new hooks on the block that might challenge the leaders.

Maybe RINA or LLOYDS couldn't be along for the ride, but there should be two or three 'disinterested' observors also aboard.
Whom would I trust? Maybe Bill Seifert or Earl Hinz or certainly Nigel Calder. I'd trust Craig Amos!:D

Also like to see real tests done on chain-to-anchor swivel connectors.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________
The Yachting Monthly (www.ybw.com) Scuttlebut on 'Rocna Anchors Acquired by Canadian Metal Pacific' is now moved to page one of their humongous list of threads.
Energy has perhaps run thin.... Everybody's waiting, likely not holding their breath.... Replys are at about 1700 with 115,351 views.

__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

LATER EDIT 11/29/2015
WARNING. The next 20 posts, except for one from Capt Craig Amos writing from the BVI,
reminding me, reminding us all, that there are better things to do in this world than bury
oneself in a measly anchor controversy...ebb's posts are pretty obvious a hijack of what
is meant to be an informative discussion.
Had hoped there would be feed back, of some sort, from where he found himself... which
eventually it turns out is to question all the anchors themselves: what they are actually
capable of, or not.
Not accepting manufacturer's hype, industry sponsored comparison testing, or what PR
omit to tell the public and represses about a mediocre performing anchor... or outright lies.
Became radicalized.
REALLY APOLOGIZE. THIS NEVER WAS INTENTIONAL..
"ebb. When the tide goes out: as in: We should leave before the ebb tide." BWSS Glossary
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
"As my dear old grandfather Litvak said (just before they swung the trap), you can't cheat an honest man.
Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump." Whipsnade

ebb

03-07-2012, 08:08 AM

is the title of the SailNet thread http://www.sailnet.com/forums/genera...ntinues-6.html *

where MAINESAIL -in one shot across Rocna's bow- summerizes the debacle. And even tho he admits to still being a fan of the rocna anchor, announces that he is so disgusted by the Smiths and their stooges that he is retiring his NZ rocna and buying a Manson. There's only so much a man can take.

REX/SARCA AnchorRight, also an admirable man throughout this fracas, steps into our USA side of the debate with a series of posts that attempt to set straight the Sarca side of the story. I don't know why SailNet rather than the monster Yachting Monthly Scuttlebut thread.
For us it is a chance to better understand the genesis of New Generation Anchors. Or rather: New Zealand Generated Anchors that Sarca, perhaps rightfully so, was first hoopful generator (not to forget Beugle/Wasi as the first first!). Sarca is not available here in the US, my understanding.

From the marketing standpoint we now have a disturbing new 2012 phenomena where all major players seem to have produced their own versions of competitor's signature anchors. A bad sign. Like depreciating your lead product. Believe that only Sarca has NOT been DIShonored with a competitor's imitation. Have to remember Rex has his own new imitation Delta on the market. And he has time to pull anchors around on the beach.

As an observor, my own level of disgust with Rocna has been evident here for months. I will never be able to admire the rocna concept with any trust or pleasure. Rocna to my mind now stands like a rock for the wrong we humans can do when conducting business. The Rocna attitude, perceiving others and customers as suckers and chumps, also seems to have infected Canadian Metal Pacific and made them appear uncaring and irresponsible.
[THIS is not sailing OR working on the boat, IS IT? Tired of being disgusted. No more energy to appear righteous.
"Go easy. If you can't go easy, go as easy as you can."]

Defender Industries, oldest marine supplier in the US, has to date a sterling reputation. And a rep for not gouging the public like WorstMarine is often perceived. Their 2012 print catalog does NOT show any Rocnas for sale. Their website DOES. They reproduce the hype that comes with selling any product, any anchor, but the pitch honestly makes no claims of 'holding power' certification. Prices are getting up there: a Rocna rated for our A/Cs is a 33lb at $419.99. A Supreme 25lb, also rated for A/Cs is $379.99. So it does look like pound for pound the CMP Rocnas are cheaper than Supreme's - by about $2.50 per lb. Maybe Defender is discounting them!? And unless you can go pick up your rubba Rocna at the warehouse just wait until you see what shipping does to the cost ! ! ! Hamilton Marine carries Supremes (but NOT Rocnas) for about the same price.

ROCNA SELLS THESE ANCHORS IN DEFENDER ONLINE AS "ORIGINAL."
THEY ARE NO WAY ORIGINAL.
CMP ROCNA's ARE MADE WITH ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STEELS THAN THE ORIGINAL.
NO CMP ROCNA's ARE CERTIFIED BY A THIRD PARTY.
NEITHER THE ANCHORS NOR THE FACTORY ARE ABLE TO BE CERTIFIED FOR SHHP. (still true as of 11/2015)
The original NewZealand/Canadian anchors are superior to the Rocnas made in China. They are the ONLY Rocna's that you could have on your boat.
Original Rocna's ended manufacture in 2007.

Defender Catalog hype talks loud about how strong the China shank is, but avoids mentioning the cast fluke. The portrait photo reveals nothing that would ID a cast fluke. No claims for SHHP in the description text. However, dodgey specs and devious description is plainly an attempt at deception and shows us what to expect from a CMPRocna anchor.

Coming away from reading and comparing the two supporting texts for Rocna and Supreme, anybody will be impressed with Manson's uncompromising presentation - blowing Rocna right out of the water. If this is a sign of what is to come in 2012, the Rocna presentation definitely holds its own anchor to a grade where it.... 'coulda been a contenda'. (Remembering the pain and defeat in Brando's famous line.) And looks like it is destined to be marketed as a Beta anchor - a "shhp-type" lunch hook - that implication proves any CMPanchor cannot be compared with the competition. CraigSmith's worst nightmare.
Compromise will find you on a leeshore - where you might want a dependable anchor to kedge off with. Words don't make an anchor, materials do.
Lower standards don't make BEST anchors. Your life, your boat deserve the BEST.
END OF STORY.
[Noticed that Lewmar's 'original' CQR also has Lloyd's SHHP cert. (in the Defender catalog) And I thought you had to dive on a CQR to get it to set!]

Imco, there is only one way that Canada Metal Pacific can get out of their quandary. That is to have Rocna anchors made in China TO THE ORIGINAL PETERSMITH SPECIFICATIONS. Bis 80 shank welded to a hot forged fluke. You'd think they must be considering this possibility to save the anchor and their reputation.
If market share is then realized, consider moving manufacture OUT OF CHINA back to Canada or, even better, back to New Zealand to recover trust and good will back home. And maybe get recertified RINA SHHP! Be interesting to hear how PeterSmith/Rocna is currently perceived by his peers in New Zealand, wouldn't it?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________

*Page 171 of the ybw Scuttlebut was where I found the above blueline link. IT doesn't work! But the heading on this post will get you there via google.
MaineSail's summary and response is worth the visit. As is reading Rex's defense of his and his anchor's reputation - and giving us a timeline.
It is impossible to imagine this internet assisted drama ever being repeated. Better enjoy it now while you can.:(

ebb

12-31-2012, 02:01 PM

is a new anchor similar to the Mocna and Manson Supreme.
http://mantusanchors.com

Have not seen this anchor in person, so any observations are entirely from diagrams & pics.
Offered in nine weights from 8lbs to 125lbs.

Dr. Gregory Kutsen's invention has a skinny Mocna style dogleg shank attached to a non-bowled fluke
that looks longer and narrower in photos than it's cousin. And may bear inspirational resemblance to the rapid response preying mantis.

The MANTUS blade is an eqilateral triangle bent up twice (rather than once in the middle like Mocna)
at about 45degrees into three nearly equal narrow triangles.
There is no hollow, no bent up pieces at the back of the blade to prevent the anchor from burying. THAT is, like the Supreme, a design plus.
Have to agree this anchor probably won't plow or drag. There are demos of jeep beach pulls that are impressive, until we remember this is the sort of thing that other anchor makers also resort to. Same 'demos' - predictable results. The hype on the site ignores impressive documented in water pull tests with other established 'new gen' anchors. The videos also forget to demo what the big ole handle is all about.

What is new about "A Revolution In Technology" Mantus is that not only does the shank, where it meets the fluke, have a welded-on cleat ("boot") with tabs for four bolts which clamps the shank and blade together.....
but the anchor's main feature is a way wide roll bar (19" wide on a 25lb*) that also is removable ! by a couple bolts thru prominent tabs on the back corners of the fluke.
Don't know, but imco the roll bar terminations look rather awkward. As does the welded tab and bolt connection.
[It can't be any more unsettling than looking at my Supreme and thinking the boat will hang solely on a weld between the shank and fluke on that one!]
Mantus can be taken completely apart, thereby making it very stowable. Suppose this is its 'revolutionary technology.'
*(roll bar on the Manson Supreme 25lb is 14" wide, side to side. Supreme total length is under 25". Total length Mantus 25lb estimate at 36")

Couple observations:
The product is described as "formed out of high quality steel plate."
Which - after all we have been through with Mocna in 2012 - no serious new anchor can get away with mushy language like that.
UNFORTUNATE. If nothing else, these words will keep me from seriously considering Mantus as a cruising anchor. Chinese Mocna might complain that the Mantus is a 'direct copy' on that point!.

Assembly pieces are all hot dipped galvanized. Nothing wrong with that, but there are a number of small pieces (including crushable lock washers) to quality control.
Shank looks skinny in proportion to the fluke, looks like it could bend - especially if it sets deep as advertised, and get yanked at an angle. Since the steel alloy is unknown, and under water pull tests don't exist, this is an aesthetic opinion. The shank ought to be a guaranteed-not-to-bend alloy like Bis 80 that Manson Supreme uses.. So far, no third party certification.

Topping it off, imco, it looks like two bolts are missing in the fluke to shank coupling pattern at the back of the shank. (see the pbase dotcom blueline below.) From my perpective there should be two bolts at the back, one on each side (2), and one at the front - five bolts arranged around the whole joint would look safer, appropriate.
Argue that the present pattern of bolts puts them in tension (when under strain) while arranging the bolts equally around the shank would out them in sheer.
Imco, my primary Manson Supreme has the most sophisticated and sharpest arrow-point** of all single-flutes. Haven't seen a live Mantus.

The anchor looks hungry and gawky....
BUT If the Mantus came out equal with its cousins in serious comparison tests - then imco its best attribute is that
as a heavy duty, over weight, 35-45lb super hook it would be carried disassembled in the bilge of a cruising A/C.

Leave the hoop off when assembling, save embarrasment in the marina.:o
The anchor might even dive better thru thick grass or hard sand with less impedimenta on the back of the fluke - not that it seems to have that problem.

If we pay attention to the demo video.... we notice a Supreme.... and then a Mocna
come skidding by the viewer ON THEIR SIDES in the jeep pull, obviously not digging into packed beach sand.
Maybe it's the wide stance of the Mantus roll bar - wider than the blade of the anchor - BUT bolted to those prominent protuberances,
it probably is, imco, one of those projections (rather than the dramatic hoop) that trips the anchor up onto to its point and gets it to dive. Behind a jeep.
There are to be found, on the Mantus site, underwater comparisons. Not exactly as clear as the water - but, with assuming, the Mantus looks impressive. The video's are accompanied by the most annoying loud guitar loops I've ever heard. Is the noise meant to dull the brain?

In my opinion this 'new generation anchor' needs to morph into a second generation. Worth a look....
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______
EDIT 1/1/13 - Didn't do my homework on this newbie, and just discovered discussions on cruisersforum and sailnet. Both are visited by Greg Kutsen.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______
*Looks like the Mantus has been around at least 9 months. Good comparison photo with a Mocna: http:www.pbase.com/mainecruising/image/145170189.jpg
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______
**For a view of the 25# Manson Supreme: http://www.azuremarine.com/store/detail.asp?product_id=MAN:S25G

ebb

01-26-2013, 11:42 AM

is Manson's newest next generation anchor. In an interview on the Manson website with a Manson rep at a boat show*
Chuck Hawley of West Marine tells us that he is going to change out his Supreme for The Boss on his personal yacht.
The guy holding the anchor tries hard to present The Boss as a powerboat anchor - the reason
may be that the next next generation anchor, as Hawley dubs it, is HOOPLESS. Many bows can't handle the hoop - and many would just want to get a new generation that fits the old roller. No roll bar!

If you take a look at the dimensions page, the fluke of the next next looks like the lines of a stealth bomber** designed by computer for a virtual wind tunnel. It's a gorgeous looking anchor !
It is in truth, so far as I can see sitting here at a desk, that illusive next step the new generation anchors had to accomplish to prove the concept.

This design clearly puts the whole anchor to work on the sea floor. It clearly looks like it will penetrate any bottom (but for coral and rock, of course.) The Boss still has the signature rock slot, BUT now with a picky adjustable bolt thingy to allow the shackle to slide or not.
Don't like the idea, because it may get forgotten and either corrode or fail allowing the shackle to slide - which can be dangerous in dynamic anchorages. The bloody slide on both anchors will be horizontal to the sea floor when the fluke is a set position, making it real easy for the shackle to slide into a pull out mode. The bolt thingy needs a positive and absolute failsafe lock position to prevent it moving. According to one poster it didn't work for him! The slide is, imco, plainly stupid for larger than daysailors & has to be designed out of existence.

A SIMPLE SOLUTION WILL BE TO HAVE A BAR ACROSS THE SLIDE JUST BEHIND THE SHACKLE. REMOVE THE SHACKLE INTO THE SLIDE MODE WHEN DESIRED. If the shackle is safety wired, have both shackles on the shank - one 'fixed' - the other slides. Why the dinky 'patented' doodah?

The wings on the fluke give The Boss a wide stance at the no-rollbar tail. 18" on the 25lb. Only an inch less compared with the 19" spread of a 25lb Mantus,
Side be side comparison of the two, imco, shows the awkwardness of the Mantus, eventho the extra width of the anchors may have been the solution (all along) to persuading single fluke anchors to stand up and dive every time. Hoops may be history!

Underwater Manson video of Supreme pulls show the anchor digging in. Not in hard pack sand or grass.
There are a number of shots, a couple show the anchor plowing - visibly implying that if the pull had continued the anchor would have continued to PLOW, rather than set. The Supreme sets when the shank shackle is also IN the sea floor, being pulled by long chain dragging on the bottom.

It's hard not to notice the more elegant, slightly taller and wider radiused arch shank in The Boss design, more extreme than the muscular angled Supreme.
Seems like the higher pull on The Boss by chain sitting on the seafloor imco would naturally pull an unencumbered fluke into a deeper set. Certainly pull it into grass or hard pack more decisively.

The anchor has a radical curve to its fluke. It is almost as if the roll bar has been flattened and incorporated into the trailing end of the blade. The roll bar bar is gone, but the turning concept of the roll bar translates into the wide curve of the fluke. Manson's description calls the fluke tips: "roller flaps".
Missing from Boss are the gussets that weld the rollbar to the underside of the Supreme fluke (sometimes called tipping flaps) that, imco, keep it from full penetration. Could be argued that the rollbar also stops full burial. Which in some cases may be a good thing!
The Boss is a slick looking anchor that seems to have solved the problem of turning an anchor onto its (un-lead-weighted) tip to get instant penetration. We have no visuals! There is nothing complicated on the anchor that can hang it up except the seabed.

There is a stylish cutout near the bottom of the shank where a bit of line can be tied with a float.... to be able pull the fluke out from cable or chain on a known fouled bottom. The whimsical shackle slide seems even more un-necessary. Especially on a fullsized working anchor. And who on his motoryacht is going to navigate out onto his unprotected fantastic-plastic bow to twiddle with the anchor's patented "preventor"? .
Even though the Hawley interview stresses that The Boss is aimed at powerboats, the
only testimonial at this point in time (1/28/13) on the Manson website is from a sailboat owner!

Sure that Manson anchors are designed to do the job regardless of what bow is at the other end.
There is a price differential: a 25lb Boss will cost you at least $100 to $150 more than the Supreme. That's powerbote for you!
No underwater videos! To prove the concept to me, Manson needs to provide some well designed visuals as well.

There seems to be an intriguing hi-tech smartness to this anchor's design. Push a button and it will park itself.:D
__________________________________________________ _____________________
*http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/SitePages/Boss%20VIDEO%20TEST.htm
**The Boss comes in "black" as well as "mirror" and galvanized.

ebb

01-26-2013, 04:15 PM

On the Cruisers Forum site, of those responders who have bought The Boss, ALL have them on the bows of Westsails and Niagras. The Manson pitch that Boss is specifically for powerboats seems to be ignored.
Surfing the net will find trawlers, no doubt, with Bosses on their anchor horses.

Paraphrasing one important poster on Cruisers, he points out that the 'scimitar' curve in the Boss shank (Supreme's are considerably flatter) makes it difficult to seat the anchor in a roller into a secure position. The Boss (on his boat anyway) cannot be pulled tightly into the roller.
Which means that even held under tension a wave slap can lift the anchor out of the roller.
This guy has to get his anchoring gear together. For safety's sake he needs a Custom Anchor Housing Device.
Imco it won't be too much a problem coming up with something, just money.

Here is a photo* of his boat accompaning the post that also shows the fluke riding significantly lower than a Supreme might.
However, with a spoon bow, the pointy end of The Boss comfortably locates far from the gel coat.... but, in his case, loose as a goose.

In my considerable opinion, Boss wave slappers should be sold WITH a complimentary anchor roller.
So far as I know, this has never been done by any anchor maker - probably make history!

It should be the responsibility of Manson to supply a matched roller for their new/next gen anchors.
OR, they might get away with providing recommendations for s.s racks that new owners can get fabricated at a local metal shop.
The Boss possibly needs a whole new concept in an anchor launcher.

Some may have seen here a doorskin holder/launcher mock-up for A-338's 25lb Supreme.**
You have a galvanized anchor so there is no arguement against having a partner roller rack that's galvanized..... Right?
Happened to take the model to Lux Metals where Dave convinced me instead to have them translate it into 10g 316. One of those shops that find it easy to make things with cad drawings, plasma cutter, and fancy sheet. Sorry I did that...really.....arguement is that the finished launcher will be lighter than galvanize. Very shiney and very expensive.

Many photos show anchors looking more like wounded seagulls lanquishing on foredecks... than shipshape anchoring kit.
Shank ends at the shackle need to be cross pinned. Preferably thru the sides of the sturdy channel the anchor rests in.
The anchor fluke will then be held tightly - but not under tension - into the roller so that it cannot move.
Found that the 25lb Supreme had to be fitted with two offset rollers out front to successfully retrieve and immobilize the hook.***
Imco there is/was no ready-made Bruce or CQR s.s. roller on the market that can do a decent job housing Supreme.
No after-market manufacturer makes a roller for Supreme - or The Boss.

MAKING THE ANCHOR ROLLER MORE VERSATILE
A form-fitting rendition of the proposed Supreme roller housing hopefully is going to tame the anchor when buttoned down.
Boss, on the other hand with its lofty shank, has a KINK in it. The flambouyant scimitar design gets very interrupted before it meets its business end.
Makes it look like a welded on afterthought. Ah Ahhh! Obvious it is a purpose designed feature....
When the lines of the Supreme shank are laid over the Boss for comparison, the chords ( longest straight line) from pin to whip curve are very similar.
Worth a try to see if the same roller rack can be tweeked to work for both very different appearing anchors.
Not only are dual rollers the conveyor and fairlead for chain & warp, but also will secure the anchor in its housing.

The Boss' interupted UPPER curve creates a throat that, we hope, will snug into the roller so the anchor can be pinned and contained.
Dunno bout the Boss' hunglow fluke. It may require its own custom.
Will see if the existing roller model can be made more versatile, accept another Manson. Maybe even the next larger sizes also?
Alternative thru-pin locations can possibly be added to the end of the channel....[just called Lux in the knick of time - the model's coming back.]
The "F" dimension (distance from the shackle pin to the whip curve) of the 25lb Boss on the Boss dimensions page is 20 3/8". The 25lb Supreme measures at about 18 5/8", pretty close. So, make the channel longer, and add next size up hole options in the form of an extended bump-up...... Hole it up for the 25lb Boss..... maybe also the 35lb of both species..... Maybe other anchors. Won't be as pretty, but practical, and versatile.
We'll see. With all those holes thru the channel in the back, maybe a built-in chain stopper can be added!
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................................................

Would you agree that it is the responsibility of the maker to provide a suitable safe housing for a new style anchor? Validate the hook.
A great incentive for buying an anchor.... if it was offered with its own fitted roller.:cool: Factory can build them better and cheaper.
Take the worry out for the skipper buying and installing a new gen.... provide the launcher/retriever!
(There can't be be a silly libility thingy involved producing an anchor roller. Is there?)

You've seen on the net that bent all to hell Windline looking like a Rocna meltdown?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________
*http://cdn.cruisersforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=45041&d=1345174762
** Anchor Roller thread #58
***This piece of gear is untried, untested. It remains to be seen if it performs as assumed.

ebb

02-02-2013, 11:22 AM

Have just taken Manson Supreme & Boss website dimensions to Patt's copy world
where they zoomed the anchor pictures up to full size !
Boss anchors are definitely monsters. Next size up Supreme (35lb) still looks compact and tidy.

Boss does look like the Supreme rollbar was bent back into the plane of the fluke.

While the position of the shackles IN AIR are relatively the same in Boss and Supreme,
the Boss SHANK sports a TOO OBVIOUS elevator addition underneath the roller-stop 'whip curve'
The designer then leveled out the shank, making it horizontal because it couldn't be angled,
to get the shackle end in about the same position IN AIR (on the drawing board) as the Supreme.
But the 35lb Supreme shank from pin to whip curve is almost a match with the 25lb Boss.
If the two are sitting on their flukes side by side, their shackle pin holes are both 14" from the floor.

Not sure what to make of that. Are these anchors designed with one secret anchor roller in mind?
I'm having second thoughts about Boss. Maybe it DOES HAVE TO be limited to powerboat bows.
It is ponderous (looking). It has TOO huge a fluke. Even though the blade has mostly
the signature cylindrical profile, I'd guess the mass of fluke area will keep it from burying.
And if it does bury, it'll be a dog to get out of the bottom. Need tug supported comparison tests.

First Interest is to see if a size larger shank and whip-curve throat will fit the 25lb custom roller.
Just to see if in a pinch a 35lb Supreme can be launched and retrieved from a smaller roller
The 35lb Boss profile is out of the question! Its boxy sideways 'footprint' is 37.5" x 18"! HUGE.*
The 25lb Boss is VERY LARGE. a boxy 33" x 16". Compares with a 35lb Supreme, imco.
Didn't get plan views of the fluke enlarged, but I bet they'll look as big as manta-rays.
The Boss now seems ambiguous to me, while Supreme still looks confident & handsome.

So we'll paste the paper onto MDO and cut out the side view shapes. When I get the roller
back from Lux, we'll have a preview how a 25lb Boss might fit the Supreme roller. Or not.

The roll bar on the Supreme is seen by some cruisers as a trash, rock & weed catcher. Some
have had problems getting the Supreme to set. Or hauled it in with a load of crap caught on it.
Could have been Manson's impetus for designing the Boss. A revolutionary design that isn't working.
Designing away roll bars is good exercise. But I'm not sure Boss has the solution.
Manson has left themselves an open door for a next gen Supreme by assigning Boss to powerboats.

Been thinking a Next Gen Supreme (called Sovereign?) has a conical curvature in the fluke rather than cylindical.
That'll widen the rolling arch of the fluke - that nullifies the rollbar - at the back of the blade.
A cone radius from the spear-head tip to the foils at the rear of the fluke, will get it to slice in easy.
Cone radius blade gets wider as it gets larger making it easier than the pipe radius of Supreme to bury.
Bend the spear tip down off the skid just a skoch, giving the fluke a nudge in the right direction: IN.
The idea, of course, is to have an anchor unstable in every position except the one
that gets the fluke to slice immediately into real estate. So they better get on it!

Boss uses its wide fluke stance to roll itself upright. It's strange lofty shank acts like an elbow to push
the anchor upright, and the anchor is equally uncomfortable on its side and has to roll up
because of the deeply curved fluke. Boss needs some styling.
Anchors shouldn't try to be fashionable if they're not handy and unsuitable.
Maybe sailors are buying Boss powerboat anchors in an attempt to keep Manson honest?;)
.................................................. .................................................. ................................
*35lb Supreme side profile is 27"x 16" with the angled shank making it look even less bulky.
The F factor is found in the dimensions of the Boss anchor from the M. website.
.................................................. .................................................. ................................
Is it a PeteSmith-inspired attempt at pulling the wool: for Manson to advertise that Boss steel is Lloyds' register,
but the anchor itself does NOT have Lloyds SHHP certification? (Welders are Lloyd's certified)
.................................................. .................................................. ................................
BENT ROLLERS
http://www.geoffschultz.org/2002 Sai...n/P6040586.jpg
More accessable famous anchor roller photo:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/building-an-anchor-mount-55743html
this is the address without google's edit (>>>.cruisersforum.>>>/forums/f118/building-an-anchor-mount-55743>>>)

ebb

02-06-2013, 09:02 AM

DESIGNING YOUR OWN
Recommend, short of building a full sized model of your yet to be purchased Manson anchor(s),
taking the manufacturer's diagrams to a copy shop and blowing them up.
Render the side view by pasteing the paper picture onto MDF and scroll it out.
From this you can figure out a roller/holder/launcher for the anchor.

Existing model for the 25lb Supreme is somewhat OK. (pix Anchor Roller thread)
Dave at LuxMetals suggests an excellent improvement to the model.
Gotta get up from the computer and make a new model. ( pix to come)
But that is what has to happen anyway to have a more versatile launcher for our versatile anchors.
Want to have the launcher/holder accept both next gen Manson anchors. Manson, Kingston, Windline aren't doing it.
A larger stronger launcher might also allow carrying unknown anchors.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____
www.easternmarine.com
3" Stoltz Polyurethane Bow Roller RP-33 are great looking orange jello 'V' rollers. They have a higher durometer than black rubber -
and are relatively simple replacable parts: $7.89. Unknown UV resist. Channel will be about 2 7/8' wide inside.

The new MDF shank mockup of the next size up 35 Supreme fits perfectly into the 25 S. dual rollers. Shank edge flat in the channel.
Which needs to be lengthened to include dedicated pin holes for longer shanks.
This is a good thing because a longer channel is called for anyway.
At least 1/2 of the housing must cantilever outboard to separate the bow from sharp flukes.
Surprisingly, ALL THREE different anchor spearheads place within an inch of each other when housed! Amazing!
Overhang of the roller frame and lack of secure bolting results in the roller possibly
becoming a recipe for stainless lasagna, with emphasis on sag (that is blue lined in the post above here.)
A strut to the cutwater may be necessary. Especially when using the launcher for actual anchoring.
Something only powerboats do.:D

Fitting the mockup of the 25 BOSS shank into the original roller model is problematic.
The shank's whip curve, where the roller seats when the anchor is housed, is different than the Supreme's.
Yet the very different Boss 25 and Supreme 35 MDF shanks do somewhat relate. When one is placed on top of the other,
whip curve to shackle hole: it's close. ( BUT they could have been consciously designed closer!
The difference is in what could have been the slightest change in radius of the BOSS whip curve.)

More important is that the existing model 25 Supreme channel and dual rollers brings , seems to bring,
the 25 BOSS' low slung wave-slapper UP to within 2-3 inches of where the 35lb Supreme fluke would sit.
Shanks rest as flat as possible inside the channel. Boss rests on two arbitrary 'points'.
Boss fluke still hangs lower and , of course, way wider than BOTH Supremes. Guessing with doorskin and MDF!

Whip curves inside the shanks of Boss & Supreme, could have related better if the designer at Manson
had a specific roller model in mind that engaged either anchor of similar weight and size.
Both plastic rollers of the housing itself, must imco, engage the shank to keep anchors quiet when housed.
The problem is with the scimitar arch of the Boss - because the anchor rests on widely separate points of contact in the holder.
To help capture the Boss we will have to make the lower roller adjustable with a sliding bolt slot.
The anchor housing needs a strong backbone/bowsprit as well - for powerboat style anchoring.
Discretion being the better part of intention. Getting away from simple is always a mistake....... Is versatility worth the effort?

So, an anchor holder that will take a Supreme 25lb AND 35lb - PLUS the no rollbar Boss 25lb - that's the rub.
If Frank gets to read this, this is why the boat doesn't get finished.:mad:
And I do understand, apropos splashing litlgull, this is probably a detail that could be done later.
Detail Manson should have forseen & finessed..... with frustrated sailboat owners in mind. IMCO.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __
pre-historic marine cousin of OSTRICH discovered in NZ: BOSSOPTERUS ONEKAKA: Jurassic scavenger of the deep.

ebb

02-11-2013, 02:48 PM

....Bruce, CQR types fall behind newer designs in 180-degree pulls."

Nice, imco, to have these tests from the small end of testing. Trailor sailors, weekenders, bassboats take note.
Don't know that smaller anchors deliberately pulled into the same sand & mud as twice as heavy anchors are straight away comparable. Twice the weight, twice the force, twice the mass, twice or more fluke area, and etc - certainly something to argue about. Somehow tho, it's just not serious enough...............25lb and 35lb anchors are serious. Boat model tank testing must take into account the 'molecular size of water' to assure the data relates to the full sise model. Mini anchors may not act the same in tests as the larger.
P.S, prides itself on their methodology, and it appears the testing is authentic and extensive
for the 8 new style, whose average weight was 12.5lbs - and the 4 old style, 16.5lbs av w.*

"Holding", on their comparison chart, was rated as "Good" for the older heavier weights. (That includes a photo of a CQR in 16' of water resting on its side.) And "Very Good" for ALL the newer hooks. (Including a 10lb Supreme, in 16' of water with green chain that looks like rope.)
We are talking about three different pull tests of 90 and 180 degree RESETs doing: 1) beach pulls - 2) unknown shallow water runabout pulls - and 3) 2.5 fathom "all chain rode" resets at 4.5:1 using a catamaran with dual 20hp Volvos - with folding props.

"ROLL BAR [Following is a direct quote from pgs 16-17 of the Feb2013 issue.]
We tested three roll bar anchors: Anchor Right's convex SARCA and two concave designs, a Rocna and Manson Supreme. We only tested the Rocna in the hard sand/clay seabed. All three anchors performed well in the 90 degree test, sliding around and moving a minimal distance.
In the sand seabed, all performed well in the 90degree and 180degree veer tests. The big surprise was in the 180dgree somersault in sand/clay seabed. All anchors set well and quickly during the initial pull, but on somersaulting, both the Rocna and Supreme [but NOT the slightly convex and slightly downturned toe SARCA] retained a clod of seabed in the fluke, dragged upside down, balanced on the embedded shank and the rollbar until the act of dragging dislodged the clod. Once cleaned, the anchor rolled over and engaged as normal.
"The Supreme performed better than the Rocna. It's possible that the upturned heel of the Rocna allows greater compaction [this has always been my objection to bowled/spooned anchors] - and this slowed the 'clean out' (PS). The Rocna and Supreme exhibited the worst resetting characteristics in the sand/clay seabed of any anchor tested, except the CQR. The anchors showed this tendency to scoop up and hold seabottom again in the mud seabed.
"Another potential problem with these anchors is that if the anchor is dropped with the boat stationary, it is possible for the anchor to settle upright on its rollbar and fluke, alowing the chain to wrap around the vertical shank...When loaded, the anchor simply cannot set. This is likely a rare occurance and easily avoided, but testers were able to snag one anchor this way."
(Because the photo in the article shows the Supreme being yanked 180 with green rope, the one must be Rocna or, likely, Sarca that got loaded!)

Supremes have been guilty (from other sources) of loading junk against the rollbar when being pulled around. This may have been a spur in Manson's butt to branch out into a second unique and original design: No rollbar BOSS. This also is reason enough for sailors to be buying the anchor. Soon we might get feedback about its good/bad points. Boss was not tested and compared - nor was the Mantus. Both are available in the desktop size used for this Small Anchor Reset Test. They may have made more to the PS story.

Technique, experience, conditions, gear and boat make anchoring unpredictable. And individual reports untrustworthy.
PS says that (third party certified) SHHP "is not indicative that an anchor will perform well if subjected to a wind or tide change in all seabeds."
Can't disagree with that. But it is more likely that a certified anchor is built better with better materials - and may perform better when you really need it. SHHP implies a higher degree of trust. Not 100% guarantee, but likely better than an anchor "Built of high quality steel."

Under the title 'Shallow' Concave, PS compares the SPADE and the pricey s.s. ULTRA
"as uncannily similar in design. Both have protruding, v-shaped soles [they are log-splitter WEDGE shaped imco] and a hollow shank, and only slightly concave with a heavily weighted toe. This seemed to indicate that there might be a strong technical advantage to having a v-shaped sole, AS THOSE TYPE OF ANCHORS TENDED TO SLIDE AROUND [buried] IN THE 90 TURN BETTER THAN THE OTHERS." How many turns it took to make that statement is unknown. Comment made that the Ultra was covered in mud. It's unlikely a slick anchor will arrive out of the seabed with more mud on it than its galv. look alike. More probable that the sleek Ultra wedged itself deeper into the bottom than the Spade, picking up virgin clay.

Not really unexpected, PS gives us only an incidental glimpse of the Ultra on the front cover amongst a gaggle of crimson painted & galv anchors.
OK, remember those two! Spade & Ultra - they both somersaulted in the 180 pulls and RESET IMMEDIATELY - Supreme & Rocna both pulled up seabed with them and took an embarassing number of yards to reset, the numbers were not published. All received "Very Good Holding".

Every new gen anchor web page has at least one video of their anchor besting everyone elses in their own beach pull amazing-quick-set demos.
Practical Sailor gives ALL contenders a "Very Good Holding" grade in their 'Value Guide' chart (after an average one to two meter initial set.)
Before the word 'compaction' (to describe a nasty clod) appeared in these 'Veer Tests' to explain the sticky mass of mud/sand caught in the fluke of the Supreme....
there was a previous post in this thread suggesting that technically widening the Supreme fluke in a conical projection could possibly unload clods faster out the back... than the constant radius pipe-section of the current Supreme design I own. Compaction, the compressing of sticky seabed clay onto the fluke, is a nasty problem. Opening the curve might help the Supreme 'clean itself'. Dump its clod. There's no help for concave or bowl designs. Suggest 'curved plate' to describe the Supreme fluke. Concave connotes a cupped shape imco.

IN THIS RESET TEST, in clay and clay/sand, SUPREME (and the chinese hooper) " EXHIBITED THE WORST RESETTING OF ANY ANCHOR TESTED." Holy Holding Power!!!

CQR was a fine anchor until the new boys came to town. Then it just seemed to keel over and die. Never to set any more.
What did this? ...... negative boat community telekinesis? They've studied how fans can influenece ballgames.
Will the end of rollbars be celebrated when every Supreme fails reset
because rollbars are beginning to appear with clods of seabed.... like the Bruces of old?
Spade has its fans for being a good multi-purpose anchor. The wedge digs very well into gravel and stone seabed., where Supreme might balk.

Obvious that the tests were well designed and meticulously carried out. If I imagined comparisons of anchors restricted to the heavy end -
150lb - 225 pounders, I'd feel similar sense of lack or insufficiency as to what PS accomplished in choosing these tiny anchors for compare.
That all the new generation anchors came out more or less the same: "Very Good" in this test of midgets, really is not useful.
And can be due partly to the small size of the anchors.
Hope it doesn't mean we're back to acquired prejudice, hearsay, compromise and opinion - still searching for that mythical all-purpose anchor.

Buy an anchor as if your life depends on it! It's not an 'as if' thing, either. Nothing secondary about selecting the best anchor.
Study the article and judge for yourself. Find out if they tested the delicate version of your favorite!:rolleyes:
They're all Good, They're all Fine, Even if the hook don't Shine.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................................
*new gen: Ultra - Spade - Sarca - Kobra - Sarca Excel - Manson Supreme - Rocna. Old gen: Delta - CQR - Manson Ray - Lewmar Claw - Fisherman

ebb

02-15-2013, 08:53 AM

The test is obviosly well designed and
could be a model for future anchor tests.

The problem is that the PS anchors are not going out
into the world to be used as cruisiing anchors.
Simply, ANCHORS TESTED ARE NOT CRUISING ANCHORS.

The PS testing model might be used to test cruising sized anchors.
Conclusions from real world testing we'd be more likely to trust lives and boats to.

China Rocnas need to be pitted against competition in a well designed
unequivocal method - moral & ethical questions aside.

Hollow shanks should be pitted against solid plate shanks.
NO HOLDS BARRED.

Pretty sure I would be willing to contribute ($10-$20?) to a fund that conducts the testing.
Setting up a full sized test is very expensive - that's why it wasn't done by PS.
Can't imagine that the subscribers - practical sailors - are impressed at all
by what Practical Sailor calls a "simplified" test.
Don't believe any competition should be funded directly by a seller of anchors.
Don't trust the purveyors. Don't trust the hype on manufacturer's web sites.
Would support PS testing of full size anchors if their test procedure
had 'peer group' - third party - consultant - watch dog - input. Test certification.
Anchors for test must be off shelf - acquired anonymously without notice of use.

In the PS brief descriptive intro of the Feb 2013 tested anchors' material and construction
.... the CAST FLUKE of the ROCNA is not mentioned!
Unfortunately there is NO photo of the anchor in the Anchor Veer Test article.
__________________________________________________ ______________________
2013 Defender catalog arrived. "NEW!" Rocna has a larger ad than Manson, where they have
managed in small print, to include SHHP - in their website's associative method of mentioning
RINA certifrication - implying China Rocnas are RINA certified. They are not. Caveat Defender!
To our knowledge RINA has not stopped Rocna's subterfuge* - bringing SHHP into question.
Think I'll 'trust the Lloyds cert that Manson has. Altho even Manson plays games with 3rd party certs.
Manson says their Boss anchors are made with Lloyds Cert metal. The anchors however are not certified
for SHHP (Super High Holding Power) by Lloyds. Why not?
__________________________________________________ ______________________
*If nothing else, this demonstrates that Rocna considers its customers to be stupid. Name basking,
using the glow of SHHP to try to color your anchors with credibility, seems to show what low regard
they have for sailors and for the actual certification process.
We can expect that Rocna will produce a product of any standard, or no standard - and change
materials and fabrication methods at any time without notice or verification. Out of Control.

c_amos

02-16-2013, 01:18 AM

For what it is worth Ebb, I am typing this on my ipad from the anchorage off of Village Cay marina, RoadTown Tortola, in the BVI's. I have captained this 42' boat down from NC, and it has a 60# CQR that has failed to set several times. I wish I had brought the Manson off of Faith, because even at less then half the weight I would have more confidence in it.

In the last 3 months aboard (only 2 nights in marinas), I have been reminded why I sold my CQR and bought the Manson.

I have recommended the owner change anchors. The CQR was "better" before "better yet" came along.

ebb

02-16-2013, 08:30 AM

.......seems like it's worth just about anything......
Would give almost anything to be anchored* in the BVI near your charge.
Can feel myself climbing out of the companionway into a glorious day.

Both Bill and Frank are also on my case.
Want to be on my case, too. Here, the hills are green, the stone fruits in flower,
daffodils and jonquils jumping out of the ground. They are predicting frost
and must-have rain, after warm days, that makes the ice in my veins break up.
I'm moving. Can't predict how close.......?.
This AM, going to try full scale shank models of the Ultra & Spade in the
model of the expanded Supreme anchor roller. Have to get that project buttoned up......
[ EDIT: Diagrams did not enlarge to match given chart measures for either anchor.]

Happy to hear you're doing what you should be doing.:cool:
I'll be out of here!
__________________________________________________ _______________
* with the best anchor. And a decent roller to hold and launch the darn thing!

ebb

03-09-2013, 09:21 AM

HAMILTON is a marine store with 5 brick & mortar locations in Maine.
The 350pg catalog is a well designed glossy color affair that probably is thumbed
more by commercial p'boats than rag boats. Looking at ANCHORS: Hamilton has a page for
mooring anchors - another page of danforth style - a page of Kingston copies of
fisherman, claw, plow. Also a Delta, CQR. And a Suncor Stainless CQR! All plows.

The only generational anchor is - lo&behold - an overblown paragraph in signature Rocna hype,
titled 'Rocna Original Anchors'. The anchor thumbnail looks like original Rocna until you see the shank has
the signature shackle slide of Rocna's mortal enemies: Sarca and Manson Supreme !
This shocking new Rocna style was recently introduced aimed toward recreational "fisherman". First, two at 9lb and 13lb
now burgeoned to seven sizes ranging from 13 to 88lbs. But here it is, the only modern decade 'new generation'
representative in this catalog sporting the phrase "Original Anchor". Has to be really good, if it's Original!
And it's now been upgraded from a weekend (that is, amateur) fisherman hook.

The CMP/Rocna con continues. Opening words: "The Kiwi design...." implies
this anchor has a KIWI New Zealand provenance. Which it couldn't possibly have.
Fronted by Canadian Metals Pacific, made in China - unverifiable cast fluke & steel shank grades - holding power not certified.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .....................................
Just checked Hamilton's online catalog:
BUT the thumbnail picturess of all seven weights of Rocna Fisherman's Anchors are mysteriously blank.... "Item on order, will ship when available."
There are six weights of Supremes for sale - not published in my copy of the 2013 paper catalog...
What's happening.... 'catalog collateral damage?'

There seems to be a collective insanity within the whole anchor situation.:eek:

ebb

03-09-2013, 05:18 PM

www.navagear.com2011/08/30...quote:
"A new Rocna Fisherman anchor,
and a new marketing strategy available in 9 & 13lb models.*

"The Rocna Fisherman's design is based on the Rocna Original,**
which is classified by RINA to the highest level available,
Super High Holding Power (SHHP).
A Rocna possesses stopping power vastly superior to
equivalent-weight plough or claw type anchors in soft sand or mud
due to the large, concave blade." WHAT DID HE SAY?

Since I phrased it out there, you see where you are drawn in
to believing that the Fisherman's Anchor is third party certified by RINA as an SHHP anchor.
THIS IS A LIE. The Rocna website and their commercial ads are foul with this tactic.

But some of you bought the ruse, because you didn't hear that the fisherman's design is BASED on the ROCNA ORIGINAL....blah blah blah.
Every word that follows refers to another anchor. (The writer gives himslf an out to deny the lie.)
[Which refers back to a distant past, almost mythical ORIGINAL ROCNA - from a time of New Zealand manufacture when Rocna was new & proud
- AND
for a ONCE AND ONLY time actually had RINA certification - that ended in 2007.] You understand, NO 9lb Fisherman's shares this SHHP.

Notice this:
a ROCNA ORIGINAL is not the same anchor as an ORIGINAL ROCNA (circa 2007) Gotcha!:p

"Rocna Originals" , made in China, bear no resemblance (except shape) in materials & manufacture or third party certification
to genuine original Rocna anchors - which ceased New Zealand & Canadian production in 2007.

The writer copies the same pumped up hype used to market the other Rocna, the discredited one with the plain shank.
He makes the switch in the same breath....introducing the new and switching seamlessly to the inflated description of the well known original 'Original'.
Assume the writer knew at the time he wrote the piece that what SAILORS had been led to believe was original... was not.
Sailors had caught Rocna marketing bogus anchors. Hence his phrase: "A New Marketing Strategy" - otherwise known as damage control.
Altho it had yet to be understood IN PUBLIC FORUM that down grading by Rocna of specs (and expectations) had been deliberate - & secret.
Professionally known as: Bait & Switch. [an example by the writer quoted above]
The duplicity of the writer shows through where he heaps on more mashed potatoes
than you wanted to hear about.
By the time you swallow the buzz words: 'stopping power vastly superior'
you want to believe these NEW 9 and 13lb anchors have passed 'rigorous testing....
to the highest level available.'
None of that is real. What we are offered today are depreciated imposters called Rocna Originals....pseudo original.

The writer also tells us the rollbar is good for hooking with grapnels. If the shackle in the Manson inspired slide-shank doesn't respond.
Having the benefit of Practical Sailor's recent small anchor testing, it's cool that the rollbar is good for
something else besides positioning the fluke for setting, collecting garbage, and pulling out a chunk of the seabed
in 180 degree veers (according to PS.) WE better have some idea of what's on the seabed....
But hooked in the head - ad hype and deceptive puffery - better look closer at what we are led to believe, and don't
act too quick on what sounds honest and logical and sincere. It isn't.

Are we getting the skinny on a great new anchor? Or is it really what the reporter lets slip:
(quote) "A new Rocna Fisherman anchor, and a new marketing strategy." [same breath]
Right, what's more important to us than being anchored out on a new "rock solid" marketing strategy?

SPINNING THE MYTH
It appears that henceforth all models of anchors from CMP will be known as "Rocna Originals". CMP's damage control. I'm sure they
have copyrighted the semantic rubric, so that unwary buyers, in the years ahead, will feel assured the anchors have a "rock solid" reputation.

A china rocna may in some respects be an OK anchor, BUT this incessant unending subterfuge implies, doesn't it,
that the maker knows the anchor is dead and needs deceptive marketing strategy to sell it?
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ....................................
*It seems the sliding shank design Fisherman's Anchor is now morphed into "Rocna Original Anchors" (Hamilton 2013 catalog) -
loosing its specialist designation (here, anyway) and gaining seven weights from 13 to 88lbs.
Also instructive: the catalog slot that ROA now occupies is the same spot where Manson Supreme used to be in 2012.... Politics? Payola?
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ....................................
** also based on Sarca and Supreme originals.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ....................................
SORRY FOR THE RANT. This Rocna thing has been more upsetting than I could ever have imagined.......PEACE!

ebb

03-17-2013, 01:28 PM

April 2013 issue of Practical Sailor promises to be a good one.
They are finally taking a look at HOW an anchor is put together. Assume new gens.
Maybe it's their way of recognizing the Rocna fiasco, and how serious a breach it really is.*

Previously mentioned here that connections of plate and hollow(fabricated) shanks to fluke
need to be specifically tested. Evidently PS sez they will be discussing the industry phenomena.
Hope they do a credible job. Don't think they are 'testing' anchors against one another in sustained 90degree VEER pulls.
And Practical Sailor, I guess, can't or won't get too technical on welds and fabrication techniques.

Since PS is a publication that ultimately requires the support of the marine industry,
I doubt (my favorite) sleeze and hype offenders will get mention. [ 'later EDIT' below - Practical Sailor cozies up to Rocna!]

But it is about time that somebody takes an objective look at anchor manufacture.
Anchor makers buy certification from respected (but who is their watch dog?) certification companies.
Methods, materials are certified - but not individual anchors. Actual anchors for certification testing are prepared by the manufacturer.
Published testing methods have the appearance, sometimes, of being a joke.
There is no government or industry agency that creates guidelines for anchors. Or anchor testing.
Each manufacturer is on its own - and it is ONLY the presentation hype and hearsay that popularizes indivbidual anchors.
Any third party overseeing the safety of anchors would necessarily create quidelines for product testing.
This would make it difficult if not impossible for inventors (like Rocna once was and like Mantus is currently)
to get their new idea public attention by selling the product.

We don't want dragonian regulations for anchors. They would be flawed. The cost of anchors would skyrocket.
And inventors would shy away from innovation.
Perhaps guide lines that are impessive enough for manufacture to adhere to - publish type & alloy of metals used.
Maybe Lloyds would create and publicize anchor testing guidelines: maybe levels or grades of accreditation & premises.
And maybe the anchor industry could all kick in to FUND complete compeditive testing of current anchors. Maybe PS could lead.
Public input would bring on public interest.

CMPRocna's selling practices are example of how the rather secretive classifying certification process can be twisted in attempts to boost sales.
Will the PS article address the quality of steel in current china Rocnas? Probably not.

Will they take a look at the hollow shank connection of the Spade and the Stainless 316 Ultra?
Lloyds is never going to grade the shank to fluke connection on the SPADE. What will PS have to report?

[At the moment, imco, ULTRA is a new anchor that promises a real advance in next generation ANCHOR SETTING. It does not have a handicap rollbar, and small size models will set & reset and hold in every test seabed. Forum reports imply that it is well suited for hard sand, thick grass and cobbled stones. Promises, promises. However the anchor, compared with others, is grossly overpriced - and has a hollow shank in 316 steel.
Pretty stuff - but ther are more appropriate alloys in strength & stiffness.
Ultra has an internal rod inside the hollow shank to aid strength. Is it passive, under tension, what material, adjustable or replacable... etc?
With continuous good showing prehaps Quickline will offer us an affordable galv version......! Names? ULTIMA - MOST - TOTAL - FANG ?]

:oEvery anchor design is embarrassed by something it does or doesn't do.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................................................
*[later EDIT].......HOW SERIOUS A BREACH IT REALLY IS

"A Second Look at Anchor Tests - Practical Sailor Article" (google)

Have not got my April 2013 Practical Sailor yet - but ran across this editorial online from that issue: Here are seven sentences from it:

"In 2011, Rocna went through dramatic changes. The design and rights to manufacture were reassigned to Canada Metals Pacific (CMP) based in Vancouver, BC. The company and its major US distributor, West Marine, took significant steps to undo negative publicity. Efforts included an expensive West Marine exchange program and new quality control measures.
In Feburary this year, I got a chance to meet with representatives of Canada Mteals and was pleased by what I saw and heard. The company, long known for zinc anodes, had taken clear steps to ensure that the anchor materials matched the marketing claims. And based on independant testing, engineers were confident in the anchors ability to match the anticipated loads."

Wholey Catfish! Red flags everywhere. What we have here is what appears to be
PRACTICAL SAILOR ENDORSING THE CMP ROCNA ANCHOR..... on what an editorial writer "saw and heard."

Imco this shows an editor getting all bent out of shape. His magazine's reputation for impartial testing be damned. This kind of writing disquised as editorial opinion comes off as endorsement. The writer's words act as a shill for CMP. Altho I've yet to read the April article, it's now colored by this exraordinary demonstration of an editor's mettle (or, let's say, his unbiased alloy) too easily bent into becoming an ally
- of a company with serious ethical problems - who are trying to market a seriously depreciated anchor.
Fully demonstrates that the magazine's allegiance is not to subscribers and sailors but getting chummy with the controversial anchor maker's disaster control specialists. "saw and heard' ? What did he saw? What "independant testing" ? Whose unsubstantiated testing? Did he tour the Chinese facility?

"And based on independant testing, engineers were confident in the anchors ability to match anticipated loads." This quote sounds like a quote
from a printed source close to CMP, probably CMP. These are words of endorsement, these words are hype, these words are crafted to sell anchors. Unless these words are used by the editor as an example of market promotion, they have no place in an intro to impartial Anchor Tests.
This editorial introduction, favorable to CMP Rocna, also influences the "Second Look at Anchor Tests" article yet to be read (by this subscriber.)
CMP is a company that does not like to talk with sailors - but cleverly uses a product testing magazine to promote their product.

Wow! Abandon ye all hope for Practical Sailor. This disgusted post person here may have been more critical than correct.....Rocna is a disease.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..
To be a skoch fair to the editor, (and the complete editorial should be read for context) he does add two sentences after those quoted above here:
"This doesn't mean we're letting Rocna - or any anchor maker - off the hook (so to speak.) The boom in low-quality cast anchors, cheap knockoffs, and persistent allegations of "mislabeled' steel slipping into the manufacturing stream keep us wary."
[This is, of course, having just implied that he has "let Rocna off the hook". Not using the qualifier: 'seems to'.]
Imco, "wary" is rather a wishy-washy resolve to making a rotten SAFETY issue right.
That quoted: It's about time - long over due - that some responsibility for the safety of sailors viz anchors was taken seriously.
Glad that PS says they're stepping up to the plate (so to speak.) Can only hope they're ready for the big league. The anchor problem isn't suddenly a new problem. It has taken genuine and largely ignored public outcry to bring it to a head. COMING DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLIC - NOT FROM PRACTICAL SAILOR MAGAZINE - fueled by blatant deception and fraud on the part of one anchor maker.... to get notice, get HERE, get this far.

No way is this far enough. Testing, evaluation, conclusions must be totally separate from anchor-maker or vender influence - including business lunches.
TO BE CREDIBLE, comparisons and evaluations IMCO must be done using full sized anchors commonly carried by cruisers.
[.....now.... where's that April issue? Maybe they've cancelled my subscription ! ! ! ]
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................................
later EDIT, day of the Strickly Sail show in Oakland, 4/11/13. Appears PS did pull my April edition, as it never arrived.:p

ebb

04-03-2013, 08:22 AM

April issue of Practical Sailor hasn't arrived.
Imco a virus like me isn't going to bug PS enough to imagine them yanking an issue or pulling the subscription......really?
So it has to be coincidence that scolding PS has had this or any effect......don't I wish!
Being ignored is the standard response as it requires no imagination.
Never seen issues of Pracical Sailor at the Strickly Sail, but this time sure to look.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..............................................

Imco, most impressive anchor at the show was the Quickline 316L ULTRA.
Talked with the guys at their outdoor booth and bathed in the silver gleam of 1/2doz sizes on display. As I understand it, YouTube Randy B, who as venture capitalist, visited the Boyut Marine* stainless shop in Turkey on another hunt in 2008.... just happened to see the prototype anchor being put together by the shop owner...........(his name?)
There won't be a galv version because encapsulated lead can't go through the 860degree galvanizing process. ssUltra lead is completely encapsulated. [Be easy enough imco to design a slip in pocket for a chunk of lead in an already galvanized anchor. Tar-epoxy it in.] A 25lb goes for about $1200 - $48 lb.
Won't find this anchor on a bowroller in the marina, it'll disappear. One owner had his shot-peened to a satin look in an attempt to lessen the bling.
It is not rod but a stub plate that's inside the turn of the hollow shank at the fluke. Added strength inside the shank at the interface.
No welds show, none.....making the construct: marvelous and mysterious, natural and surgical, sophisticated and simple....... all at once.

Similarity to the take apart Spade** (not found at the show) mentioned by PS, is a stretch. Ultra is by far the most sophisticated anchor in the world. A legitimate departure from the Spade. And 316L Ultra might not match a galvanized MansonSupreme in mass & Grade 80 strength - BUT compared with all the others, it stands alone in Form-Follows-Function. Ready to instantly deep set! Was told that during development the anchor went through countless test stages - including a short lived galv version. Quickline is eager to have Ultra tested against all comers, and said reality comparison tests are long overdue. 316L is seen as less strong than Grade 80 steel. Let's see Ultra compared with Supreme!

MANSON had a gorgeous 25lb ss SUPREME ($998, Azure Marine - $40lb). A slide shank 15lb BOSS, in the flesh, didn't look so radical, nor even as tuff looking as the bling Supreme next to it. Girth difference could not be compared. NO rollbar Boss has a wide fluke that imco could pose a problem staying buried veered 90degrees. Has prominent angled wing tips to help flip it onto its fluke - but, imco, will impede burial, since the flaps are welded out on the tips of its wide fluke - angled against the direction of the pull - as if to put brakes on the signature rolled blade - preventing penetration.
(Boss bears more than a passing resemblance to Poiraud's (Spade) high arched shank and wide fluke Sword & Oceane anchors - now defunct.)
Supreme is robust, Boss a little anemic and fussy. In person, the patented little bolt whimsy, which keeps the shackle from sliding - or not - looked even more screwy - doesn't belong on a cruising anchor - costs more - perfect for power boats. Will Boss be around for long? Will veer tests be its downfall?
The tall aspect of the shank insures that the anchor is unstable on its side - on the seabed - and rolls to rest on its blade.
Sighting along the curved fluke, can see the curve is a constant radius cylinder section just like Supreme's - that 'compacts' mud as the fluke trys to bury..... if it happens as PS reports in their most recent trials. Boss does not have third party certification.
Doesn't get ebb's good SHT certification either (super high ingenious tech.) :rolleyes:

MANTUS also had a tent, but the presenter was deeply involved. Mantus also didn't look as radical in life as online. Appears well made. Could swear the bolts were oversized and looked adequate for keeping the takeapart together. The hex heads or nuts protrude underneath the fluke like teats for baby mantuses. Needs testing against other new gens. Veer tests could be problematic. Can't say that seeing it invites liking it. And wonder if this mechanical wonder can be third party certified.
I'll make a prediction that this hooped anchor is the last of its kind. [http://www.knoxanchors.com for a Scot hooped anchor]
Compared with an aptly named ULTRA - if Ultra delivers on everything promised - this is where New Generation hoop anchors mutated into the present Ultra Now Generation, leaving most of the new generation behind. NOW they got it right!
(Have a lot of questions about anchor Certification....actual testing or merely materials....ethics of manufacturer prepared anchors, etc.)

This is a better way to obsolete the cumbersome rollbar....
ULTRA now comes with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) certification: SHP - equivalent to the highest RINA andLloyds SHHP. Actual 3rd party in water tugboat tested (STRAIGHT PULLS mud, sand, gravel***) This guarantees US Military buys this anchor. Good price driver! Sizes from 11lb to 792lbs! Each anchor has its own serial number, which you register with the company. THAT is as good as it gets: the manufacturer keeps a record of YOUR anchor. THIS creates a responsible standard for cruising anchors.
The semi turned down fluke - dubbed 'dipper style' - assures INSTANT SET. This feature plus the compact sleek touch-me design means imco this anchor willingly sets deeper when necessary - rather than getting rolled, plowed or yanked out. Claims for heavy grass and rubble. Instant set means it won't drag and load grass - preventing set - the rollbar's main problem, along with its weight at the back of the fluke.
Anchor looks like it flowed out of its element born as a single form.... rather than, like other new gens, so obviously fabricated of chunks and pieces. A clam-digger jeans look.... obviously good, when well done.

Reliable setting in the widest variety of seabed. Comes up easy - leaving the seabed behind. Definition of an ideal anchor for a small cruiser.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................
*Boyut must be the anchor products garhauer of the Mediterranian - developing new products for superyats and normal boats. Turkey is not part of the European Union and has a thriving economy.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................
**SPADE. No third party cert. [Why wouldn't an anchor maker accredit their hype and boost sales - like Manson and Quickline?]
Except for the fact that Spade and Ultra both stay buried, turn in set, in 90degree veering situations (in the PS comparison tests of 'paper-weight' anchors) - there is no other similarity between them. How to understand what PS is talking about.... Unless it's kind of a PeteSmith smudge on Ultra for being "it's-so-obvious" a fudged copy of the Spade........ There is no who-came-first in anchor design - it's about safety, how well it's made, how well it sets. Despite Spade's internet hype to the contrary, the anchor, in PS 180 veer tests, did PULL OUT OF SET.....But cleaned itself off immediately - as the Ultra does - and RESET.
Lead tip weight SPADE and ULTRA might be recognized apart from the others as WEDGE ANCHORS (vs blade). But there similarity ends.

[Alain Poiraud, inventor of the Spade, died in Feb 2011. RIP. Poiraud also designed more extreme blade anchors, that may have inspired the Boss. Spade, now owned by Yves Gelb, intends to put a dealership together for the US: SeaTechandFun? No numbers on the "high tensil" steel they describe.
http://tradeonlytoday.com/ Try 'Spade Anchor serious' in search bar - should bring up "An anchor for the 'serious' cruiser" ArchivesTues29Jan2013.]

Morganscloud, 56' charter boat out of NovaScotia, bigger vessel, bigger anchor, bigger engine, bigger budget. Sane, thoughtful opinions on many subjects with serious feedback from other big boat conservative owners/yoyagers. Cut above the usual forum fare.
Nothing on the Ultra anchor. Ultra only got ABS cert in Feb 2012. MorgansCloud - Spade's biggest champion - chose a twice oversized as their primary - same reasons we would: dependability in multiple seabeds, including thick grass/kelp and rubble, ease of set, ease of retrieval, ease of carry. [However, they oversized, something a midget 26footer can't do.]
Rocna Versus SPADE, Strengths and Weaknesses www.morganscloud.com/2011/11/23/rocna-versus-

***Remember the testing is paid for by Quickline. ($50,000 plus?) There is the ethical problem - whether anchors selected for testing are manufacturer 'prepared' - or should come 'off the shelf.'
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........................................

Celebrating 3 weeks of expungement by Practical Sailor. Oscar Wilde said, "A little sincerity is a dangerous thing and a great deal of it absolutely fatal."
♫ On a happy note: Awoke this morning thinking that if KAT EDMONSON sang into a voice activated 3D printer, the result might look like an Ultra. YouTube, 'Way down Low.'

ebb

04-16-2014, 10:50 AM

Oakland Grill Omlet $9.95, PERFECT. (a perfect omlet is as hard to find as a perfect anchor).
Empty parking garage. Expected crowds for the boat show being Sunday, but there were far more people milling around the plaza farmer's market than in the cordoned off BoatShow. Weather was beautiful, no waiting at the ticket booth ($15) which led directly down to the floats and the HylasBenateauCatalina fabtasticplasticchrome AQUA-RV's packed like gigantic brislings in the sardina marina. Only people around were sales and greeters. There wasn't one smaller boat that looked inviting and comfortable .....went inside the center.

Far fewer vendors there than last year. The halls shrunk with movable walls, looked like a half empty stage set. Talked bottom paint with the e-paint and SeaHawk guys, handled candy colored yacht ropes at Yale and NewEngland, walked breifly through Garhauer and Svendsens - deja vu year last, one past before, and before that!..... and escaped into the sun ouside again. It's unsettling ambling by vendors trying to catch your eye. Innovative vendors were absent like a species gone extinct. Got a free sample of Kanberra teatreeoil boat deodorant that smelled like lime gummy.

[IN THE WAKE OF THE ELUSIVE MULTI-BOTTOM HOOK]

MANTUS. Go to their website and take a look if you haven't recently. Huge changes.
There are some six Utubes, taken together are impressive for the energy put into making them.
There is one UNDERWATER set & drag comparison you could watch.... with Supeme, Boss, Rocna, Spade, Fortress, Delta and even a CQR and an 'authentic' Bruce. First WAR video shows five anchors dragged at zero scope (shaft ON firm grassy sandy seafloor) draging just like we expect CQR, on their sides- NEVER diving in. Mantus also took about 10ft to finally dive in & set. SET is a relative term.

Outside at their tent, a long conversation with the guy about the anchor - not the doctor-inventor. They had a dry setup with 10#-15# Supreme, Rocna, Delta, and Mantus*, all laying on their side as they would on a plywood seafloor. He asked me to lift the tip of each fluke with a finger, to demonstrate where weight was concentrated. Equal weight anchors.....but pressure was doubled (painful) under the Mantus tip. Now THAT'S interesting.
Granted Mantus has a wider stance (therefor more tip weight) because of the rollbar stub-outs on the end of the fluke..... and those constructions on certain seabottoms will sink in easily, thereby lessening weight on the tip......but also, these rather strange appendages will keep the anchor from skidding - and, we have to accept it is designed that way to help trip the tip into the seabed. Mantus advertises INSTANT SET!
[*no Ultra, no Spade lead weighted tips] SKIDDING KEEPS ANCHORS FROM SETTING. (no kidding)

My demonstrator also pointed out a couple of glaring differences between MANTUS and SUPREME. Supreme fluke has the spear point "beveled on the wrong side." The chamfer should be on TOP of the blade... not underneath. Here's the logic:
Imagine a wood chisel. Which way would you hold a chisel to knock off a wood plug in a counterbore? Naturally, with the bevel down on the work, so the blade doesn't dig into the surface. Your hand guides the chisel slightly up as it slices off the bung and you haven't gouged it like you did a hundred times before.
OK, we want the anchor's sharpened bevel to catch 'the work'.....where would we have the bevel?
No kidding.....not undercut, because it LOOKS cool that way.... like Supreme does it (and Rotten Rocky), bevel the top of the fluke, leaving a bloody chisel edge that digs in as soon as the anchor moves.....where Mantus has it.
So simple and logical, it's cutting edge.

And also THIS comparison with Manson. It's a given (to Ebb, anyway) that Supreme is a handsome, hunky, steroidal hook.
Its roll bar has an equal and substantial role in its aesthetics.
Mantus makes theirs REMOVABLE. Use it when you need it. Proportionally, it's lighter in appearance and weight, more like bone than muscle.
The entomorphic look of the Mantus is emphasized with its wide spindly rollbar bolted on.
Seen from a sensible rather than aesthetic viewpoint, it becomes acceptable - moreso, if practicality is compared with its pumped up cousin.

Mantus is appearing on sail & cruise forums. Anecdotally performs as well as Supreme. Seems to hold in current and tidal changes.

At the Show they had a stainless copy on display. Even it looked... experimental. The anchor is a TAKE-APART.
It will always have that attribute as an impediment. Never fashionable like hi-heels Ultra - always flip-flop affordable.
With real reservations as to undisclosed alloys Mantus is made with..... it seems like a great stowable backup anchor for a small cruiser
......more reliable perhaps than an aluminum Fortress......maybe the Spade too.

Imco, one undeniable advantage of the Supreme design is its FLAT NON-BOWL fluke. Open, curved, not a bowl.
[The little Rocna in the boat show comparison display has the usual rear fluke upturns that make the anchor into a SCOOP, and imco can only hinder its ability to set deeper when a situation calls for it.....when you pray it will stay! Imco, scoop anchors will load and pull out.
Flow of sand or mud over the top of the fluke as it is pulled under is diverted by the up-turns at the back of the blade - if flow continues, the extra force pushes the back of the anchor downward - which redirects the pointy end upward. Not really where you want it to go.]

MANTUS is not bowl shaped - it is not a one diameter rolled fluke like Supreme - it is a single plate with three angled planes that runs flat & clean from tip to back - making it unlikely to collect seafloor. THIS IS THE MANTUS' BEST FEATURE...... The stub rollbar connectors probably won't stop bury as much as the angled rollbar gussets under the fluke on Supreme and Rocna anchors. Comparison testing is needed. Mantus' more open top platform than Supreme, suggests mud won't stick & pack but slip off the blade.
YET, sleek Supreme with its impediments and knobly Mantus are equally handicapped.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...

MANTUS is a major achievement BUT it has imco some major PROBLEMS:
PROTRUDING HEXHEADS on the bottom of the fluke are dangerous and have to be designed away......Or leave them there
and WELD THE TIP DOUBLER ONTO BOTTOM of the fluke....with bolt heads sheltered within or behind the reinforcement.
Also, inherently flawed are nuts and bolts at the shaft-to-fluke connect.....nuts on top screw into a deminished shaft diameter due to threading. Problem: fasteners shouldn't be in tension, constant concern about bolts loosening but also corrosion in cut threads. Technogical backward steps. MANTUS CANNOT BE PUT ON YOUR DECK BECAUSE OF PROTRUDING NUTS UNDER THE FLUKE. Absurd design flaw.

►SERIOUSLY, look into redesigning the take-apart fluke/shaft by inserting the shaft thru the bottom into a forged slot and fasten it together thru a collar with bolts in sheer across top of blade. Shaft seats into truncated slot (like wooden shaft of pick-mattock tool) with clevis pins holding it tight. No bolts to bend or wear or rust. Stronger the pull, tighter the join. Force is on the whole fluke, rather than bolts alone.◄

Horizontal rollbar stubs (can SNAG LINE & CHAIN and upset the anchor) .. why can't these wide-outs be on the same plane as the fluke? As extensions of the fluke angle. What's the problem? If they must stick out, the transition will be smoother, the anchor streamlined, looking less cranky - and more likely to SLIP THE RODE if it loops under the rollbar in a tidal change. Even less weight (less pipe) to the trailing edge (more tip weight!) Shank & fluke are mild steel...Ideal alloy: Grade 80 for the shank, Hi-Test 4140 for the blade. Must be made in USA. Rollbar should be galvanized inside, left open or rubber plugged.
THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT MANTUS IS MADE IN USA. Assume only US manufacture has control of materials and methods.
No disrespect - just want a winner I can have aboard!.................. IMCO....................
Like to see results of a destruction test (shank pull) on an unprepared full size (25#-35#) Mantus.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................
A perfect ALL-PURPOSE PROGRESSED ANCHOR doesn't exist. It's caught in the same bramble of compromise any MidgetOceanRacerCruiser like Ariel/Commander experiences. For the bluewater sailor.....
THERE IS NO CLOSE-ENOUGH for a primary anchor.
Trade-offs, cop-outs, sell-outs, half-measures in design, materials, methods do not apply to boat anchors.

ebb

04-27-2014, 12:14 PM

Pretty much impressed with seafloor videos Mantus presents on their home page.
Won't quibble about anchor drag edits that might - or do - show the Mantus being towed along the bottom by the panga (or whatever) UNDER the surface of the seafloor.
Definitely IN the bottom rather than skipping along and stirring up clouds of sand or mud that all the other contenders seem to demonstrate.
Always possible to see videos on other manufacturer's sites that show their anchor out-performing the competition's.

Ever since the Rocna Debacle, admittedly Ebb has been over-sensitized to being taken for a chump by an anchor vendor.
Like being jilted by somebody trusted - the heart in the stomach disapates with time, but the memory is impressed in DNA forever.
The Mantus videos are obviously not third party, and are there to promote the featured Mantus.
But one thing is certain, anchor Mantus likes to set. Whether it likes to set DEEP is, imco, even more important and needs third party confirmation.
Whether we ever get that is a real problem. It's doubtful that WetsMarine will ever sponser comparison tests again !
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...

FROM MANTUS TESTIMONIALS
[Like the onsite video comparisons the testimonials are, of course, very Mantus positive.] QUOTE:
"Hi Greg:
Just received your 13lb. Being very curious how you got your design to set in hard
packed sand (where others fail), I had to try it right away in our yard. It did indeed set,
well done! It seems that you have perfected the chisel point, a little different than both our
Rocna and Manson.
I have to admit I'm a bit of an anchor buff, and have about 30 anchors in our boat house.,
and I love to photograph them under water to see how they perform. We have been
sailing on Georgian Bay since '65 (part of Lake Huron, one of the Great Lakes), where
the sea bed is often a combination of weed, rock, gravel, mud, and sometimes sand (and
old logs too left over from the days of logging the area).
You should think about a simple knock down design with perhaps one shank bolt and
welded tabs the shank foot slips into, it would be great for those who want to stow it in
pieces and need quicker deployment.
Again, great job, thanks! Brian"
.................................................. .................................................. ..................................

Well, at least one other Mantus fan calls for an UPGRADE of the SHAFT/FLUKE connect.
If I had the time I would buy a 25-35lb Mantus and proceed to change upgrade it into a trial anchor (as I see it!) as outlined in the preceding post.
1) Remove the welded shoe from the shaft.
2) Cut a precision slot for the shaft out of the fluke.
3) Weld together another shoe(collar) 1" to 1 1/2"H - and weld it to the fluke around the slot (filling former boltholes at the same time.) Shoe needs to follow exactly the outline of the shaft 'foot'. The thru-hole at the bottom of the fluke will be larger than the top of the collar.
4) Fit the 'restored' shaft base to the slot/shoe.
5) Drill holes sideways thru the shoe-collar and shaft end for clevis pins.
The idea is to create a truncated socket or shoe for the shaft to SEAT in.
Shaft inserts thru bottom of fluke reaching a point where the base stops even with the bottom of the fluke.

FLUKE. Where the rollbar is attached, it's current angled wide-outs will be bent back, straightened into the same plane as the fluke's twin shoulders.
Attachment tabs on the roll tube will be cut off and welded to the new angle. Tabs no longer will be connected on an arbitrary horizontal plane, but on the plane of the flukes. The fluke roll-bar ears will be cut off and welded back...on this experimental anchor.
.................................................. .................................................. .............................
A BETTER SHAFT BASE is for it to be factory hot forged into a thickened splay foot that dovetails and fits snugly on four sides into a truncated female shoe of the same wedge shape. With the shoe/housing bonded with the fluke, rather than the shaft as Mantus now has it.
A one-off trial shaft base can be built-up with weld rod and ground to the splayed shape in a small shop.
Don't want the expanded end to get stuck in the slot - which it might if too skinny. Snug, but easy to knock apart after use... without swearing.

Another change: orient the ROLLER-TUBE TABS so that they are inline with the pull of the anchor when it sets. Fore-n-aft.
Rotate them approximately 90° to parallel the center-line of the fluke. These decorations on the current model may act as tripping toes (I want to call them epaulettes) to get the rode to briefly lift the back of the anchor just enough to dive the fluke. Make 'em more streamlined.
Instead of drilling holes for nuts & bolts.....maybe weld heavy round bolt heads on short shanks into holes in the fluke. Have the rollbar tabs drop over the heads and set by pulling back into tear-drop style slots in the tabs. No tools (except maybe a rubber hammer) needed to knock the roller off! Nothing sticking out.
If that doesn't work, another alternative might be to have the roll-bar ends inserty into short next size up pipe stubs and pins.
What-do-you-know: A BOLTLESS, NUTLESS, KNOCK-APART MANTUS ! The 25-35 pounder in this DIY alteration may not end up as WIDE and perhaps change the heavy tip weight, instant set performance? What small boat anchors lack in overall weight, they can makeup in tip weight. More tip weight the better! This exercise is just toss for someone who is convinced the current Mantus ought to be upgraded.

Imco, streamlining the Mantus will result in a smoother DEEPER set. And FINESS the take-apart option.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .....
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .....

Once the INVENTOR has had his or her brainstorm, worked out the stuff not seen at first, gotten the plan, funding, materials together & created the product and a market (a significant BIG DEAL)
.......at that event, the ANCHOR falls into a crystaline sleep, stops developing or improving.

Take MANSON SUPREME: clearly this ground breaking anchor will be vastly improved by
(1)reversing the prominent point chamfer to bevel the top of the fluke... AND TO ASSURE INSTANT SET, bending the point down 3° or more.
(2) creating a conical fluke-blade, rather than cylindrical - flattening the arc at the back of the blade - to ease penetration and discourage compaction.
(3) lightening up on the roll bar. Less diameter, less back weight, more tip weight. (have to remember, it's just a helper)
(4) removing the under-blade gussets and tube ends that act as 'brakes' -- PUT THEM ON TOP - so the bottom of the fluke is clean and cuts freely into the seafloor. A lighter rollbar can also be removable - mounted in short cups welded to the top of the shoulders.
(5) one more thing might be added for upgrade: Round off the back of the fluke so that the anchor cannot stand upright as it does now.
(6) provide a shackle hole near the end of the shank at the back of the fluke for tandem anchoring or buoyed retrieval. A cruising anchor doesn't also need to be a sliding slot bass boat anchor. No-one but an idiot would trust their home to a sliding shackle.
Concept needs redesigning. Sadly, for Supreme, it's too late. - Supreme is frozen in time - and imco will be replicated without improvements... until it fades away.
Obviously, Manson know they have a problem with Supreme. Not just with the rollbar. Instead, they jive the awkward roll fluke BOSS as an improved upgrade. But say it's all about power boat anchor retrieval. Now they have TWO problematic close-enough-but-no-cigar new gens.
It's not about sales and fudging anchors to fit off-the-shelf anchor rollers...IT'S ABOUT HOW WELL AN ANCHOR HOLDS THE BOAT.

Trial up-grade models can fairly easy be knocked together and actually tested. But changing the current Supreme can only be done at the factory. Might make a model of an improved version in fiberglass, try weighted tips. Use it as a lunch hook, drag it on a beach, see how it performs.
Problem with an actual upgrade Supreme II or Mantus II is that it puts the excellence of originals in limbo. A good-enough-anchor requires a whole raft of flimflam that even a vendor has to believe. Skippers, equally, are locked into Bad Science and mediocre sales hype that doesn't hold water. Forums are full of unenlightened posts extolling the virtues of unenlightened anchors. Good enough anchors crank sailors into darwinian spirals. On a rocky lee shore during rising winds, when a skipper sets his maybe-it-will-maybe-it-won't CQR or DANFORTH, DELTA or SPADE, or that spiffy NEWGEN HOOKEROONIE... . . . . . . and it begins to drag....
he and his anchor become extinct.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______
A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds. Mark Twain

ebb

05-07-2014, 01:43 PM

Sent MANTUS a version of page 11 here.
I know it's a chore to read.

Got a short chatty e'mail back from Greg Kutsen. Last line reads:

"The reason we did not make the shank slide through the fluke,
is if the bottom surface of the fluke is not smooth,
it negatively affects the likelihood and quality of a set in a hard bottom...."

If it's not smooth, that's my point, exactly!
Any bump is avoidable, but even a smooth elongated bulge on the bottom is better design than four totally offensive hexheads....gee whiz.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................

"You've got something better, I fancy.
You are the stormy petrel of crime, Watson. What is it?" ----Sherlock Holmes, The Naval Treaty.
(...a smarter anchor.)
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................

Any design anchor will set in certain bottoms better than others. We want an all-purpose anchor - muti-bottom anchor.

DIVING ANCHOR
We have learned that some popular old-style anchors are difficult if not impossible to set in many bottoms. Plows like the Delta and CQR are not trustworthy, they zipper seabeds and seldom dig in.
Scoop anchors like the Claw, Bruce and partially others like Rocna and Spade will often take a bite out of the bottom and hold it in the fluke. What this does is negate or disengage the blade by leaving the blade to pull a wad of seafloor, rather than allowing the metal to slice and slip deeper into the bottom. The more extreme 'authenic' Bruce or forged Manson Ray pulls out a ball of bottom when it drags.

An anchor under tension shouldn't walk along the sea floor or just under the surface in a partial set. It must keep diving into the sea floor... if that's what it takes to hold the boat in place.
The sailboat's primary anchor has to do two things equally well:
FIRST Merely pulling the anchor at 2to1 or 12to1 scope should always, every time, encourage the blade to slip into the sea-floor for its initial set.
SECOND When conditions worsen, it is crucial an anchor keep digging in without being defeated by its dandy but dumb design features.
(Handles of garden spades are housed in sockets molded into the front face. Back of the blade is more or less flat and uneventful -
BUT ALWAYS SMOOTH - the force of a foot cuts a clean hole. The soil in front breaks and crumbles and the gardener turns his garden-bed.

A BOAT ANCHOR'S PURPOSE IS NOT TO BE A SHOVEL
Setting anchor means cutting into the seabed by pulling. This means that the shank side of the fluke, the front, pulls disturbed or turned-up bottom. It's a self defeating hold. Obviously, further penetration is what is going to hold the boat. Not detached loosened material.
Anchors with impediments to diving in (whimsies like trim tabs & accent pieces, roll-tubes, prominent tube ends and attachments on the bottom of the fluke) can, imco, be dangerous. This will include the wide-out horizontal tabs on the shoulders of the MANTUS fluke.
Anchors may seem to hold, yet easily drag later, because initial set is never deep enough.
In fact, deep setting seems to be discouraged by all new generation anchor designs.

Anchors with a single scoop or spoon, meant to grab onto the bottom with a concave blade (like Rocna, Spade, and to some extent the super slick wedge Ultra).....
cancels the piercing action of the blade by separating and holding a wad (even pebbles, sand or mud) of bottom the anchor is supposed to penetrate.
{Of course, I'm trying to get a point across here. No tests have been done to support this argument. And it will probably have to be proven or deproven with a well designed virtual reality program....if not by cleaned up experimental anchors.}
An iron bowl holding on to the seafloor, like a 300lb mooring mushroom we'd want for our A/C, isn't portable enough. Nor is a piece of pie shaped mushroom hook. Because, simply, a piece of sea-bed in the fluke keeps it from deep set. It achieves its scoop and as if it is designed to do so, rolls out with its cargo. A muffled 25lb scoop is unlikely to hold the boat, unless it weighs 100lbs. OK, look at it this way: Suppose you have to haul up your favorite anchor and it has a glob of mud glued in its fluke (or a jammed rock)... and it has to be dropped immediately to reset....
Will you leave that glob on the anchor when you're going to try it again? Maybe you have the wrong anchor.

HOP SKIP JUMP. A scoop type anchor is not a deep setting anchor.
A fluke to take hold of the bottom has to act dynamically at all times. Can't be influenced by a disengaged plug of sea floor in its face while holding on. Plain flat flukes work clean and sharp when penetrating. When additional depth of set is absolutely required, we assume it'll slip in deeper.

{Sometimes the Supreme flat curved fluke seems to act like a scoop (according to my friends at P.S. in one of their tests)....because sticky bottom compacts on the curved-up sides of the fluke....disabling the anchor. Certain sea-floors aren't part of Supreme's all-purpose intelligent design.}
The bottom of an anchor's fluke imco must be as smooth and clean as possible from tip to tail.
Likewise the top of the fluke ought to be as free as possible of nooks & doodahs, blocks & barriers, to help penetration..

Highly polished, super slick, wedge-bottomed ULTRA has edge-fluke brakes (in the form of prominent downturned fins) on its shoulders - possibly inspired by Supreme/Rocna/Spade. These appendages are there, they say, to keep the wide tips of the blade from digging in before the pointy end. Which is conceptually understandable, but counter-intuitive. Form forgot function. The bottom of the Ultra anchor is not made for multi-seabed penetration. Quickline probably did all their pre-production testing in wet sand.
It's more plausible that Supreme/Rocna roll-bar designs required these little fins as gussets to support welding roll-tubes to the blade.
(Both Supreme and Rocna, imco, mistakenly, put these gussets on pipe ends allowed to protrude underneath the blade, where they still are to this day, rather than more logically terminating them on top of the fluke.
{ Want to guess why P.Smith publically hates Supreme so much?... because Manson copied his biggest mistake! Have to own your mistakes, but sharing them with your biggest competitor, horrors!! They act like hooks designed to keep the fluke from burying. Whatever for? An unencumbered fluke bottom surely is content to cut and dive in better. Real tests will prove this.}
ULTRA marketing, rather than good science, imco, tells us their fins actually help the anchor stay buried (in wet sand) during 90degree turns. 180degree pullouts not mentioned! .....Balderdash, there is NO support for this nonsense - visual or logical.

If a roll-tube or weighted tip orients the hook upright to initially sit on its fluke, then gussets or fins at the ends of the fluke are at least redundant.. Quickline, ultimately, could flatten the ULTRA scoop, which will add more stability to the upright attitude of the anchor in its ready position.... removing the fin barriers altogether.
If non-roll-tube Quickline Ultra has proved to its inventor that these impediments on the bottom of the fluke are indispensable, he can remove them to the top of the blade and line them up to stream with the pull (like the fins of a '59 Cadillac Eldorado), rather than angled, as they are, at opposing 40 degrees along the bottom edges of the fluke. It's obvious these dynamic duos discourage the anchor from setting deeply. What is that logic?? You can spin hype supporting these appendages - but they are as useless as epaulettes on a falcon, if not dangerous.
Ultra really has to get real. These angled fins may just discourage Ultra from adequately setting in all kinds of firm bottoms, mud-sand-grass, because the weighted point of the fluke is a wedge that must displace material to penetrate rather than cut into seabed like a blade point. Stainless Ultra wouldn't work at all if it wasn't so sleek and slippery.

Prominent tube and gusset ends below the fluke shoulders on Supreme & Rocna - kopykat angular fins on the Ultra - and the angled wide-outs on the Mantus - are hyped to provide them conceptual genius for being there. The appendages are ALL inept, awkward, ugly and plain wrong - if I say so myself. Let's include here the flawed single point fluke concepts: HUMP and SCOOP ! !
BUGEL, whose flat blade 'home boatshop' concept started it all, had it right.. sadly, never finessed to an upgrade - as our inspired pretenders have all attempted.

Inspriratus interruptus: What are these anchor makers collectively thinking? New-gens promise so much,
but not one really delivers a truly superior anchor.

Fast set, deep penetration, intuitive design. Trust my life and my boat to a half fast anchor?
Insurance, and certification companies like RINA and Lloyds could have a stake in this.

C'mon, somebody, THE TIME HAS COME... STEP UP, DO IT RIGHT.

ebb

03-18-2015, 08:56 AM

A nice person has slipped me a contraband copy of P.S. February 2015.
Where-in a six page article called 'Anchoring in Squishy Bottoms' appears.

It reports on a year old comparison test, sponsored by Fortress, of about a dozen 40-45lb
popular anchors and a 45lb mooring mushroom as 'control' in Chesapeake Bay soft mud.
P.S. was invited to witness the testing first hand, but were busy with their own testing at the
time. They were subsequently given what they call 'well documented' results and videos of
the procedure by Fortress, and that is the basis of this report. It's still second hand.

The Squishy Bottom report by P.S. should be read first hand...to see if you can get a handle
on whether the methods used (static dragging) with a powerful winch is actually comparably
experienced by a yacht. And how do you read the data gained for each anchor for your and
my particular little ship.. by the method used? Big problem is how to read the chart as to
what the hook is up to... most times seems to be just flying through the pudding.
Look at the Chesapeake Bay Soft Mud Anchor Testing Thursday 8/7/2014 on
YouTube. There are 4 VIDEOS hosted by ChuckHawley "Independent Reviewer"
with straight forward you-are-there info and opinion on the difficulty of coming to
conclusions about all the other anchors but the Fortress FX...that wins the contest
anchors down! (not always, see 1st video.) The constant drag procedure bothers P.S..
All anchors preceded by 20' of 3/8" chain and 100' of wire cable rode for a 5to1 scope, but
the pulls added an extra 100' of cable to drag the anchors up to the 5to1 set norm...NUTS.
You get to see the graph, and Mr Hawley's explanations. Constant dragging 10 fpm doesn't
reflect any actual setting of an anchor. Graphic readout invents as many mysteries as facts.

Three prominent spot-light photos of an aggressive claw type anchor called SuperMax*
.. seeming to support the P.S. article is evidently never mentioned in the final Fortress test
documentation. P.S. also mentions other notable omissions from the Fortress line up.
Manson's aluminum Danforth-style 'Racer', Plastimos's 'Kobra", the Kaczirek 'Bugel', and
the 'XYZ' anchor. (in P.S. words: "an odd shaped and relatively obscure anchor that
excelled in Practical Sailor's 2006 soft-mud testing").

Notable and unfortunate, as it leaves the spirit of Fortress' intent wide open to criticism. And
since a comparison test made public is obviously targeted at buyers in the marketplace -
and certain competitors are excluded... for whatever excuse - you have what everyone sees is
B ad S cience.

Fortress Anchors (Don Hullerberg, inv) are aluminum. The ones tested (FX37) against the steel
45 pounders were less than half the weight at 21lbs. Were adjustable to two angles: one at the
more-or-less common new-gen angle of 32degrees, and a second 'mud setting' at 45degrees.
These danforths held twice as well in mud as the best of the steel at 32degrees....and 3times
as well at the 45degree setting. A smaller Fortress (FX16) assembled at 45degrees nearly
matched its big brother in holding.... "Up to 30 knots, but set anchor alarm."
Also showing well was a WetsMarine 35lb Danforth HT, at about half the FX37 Fortress max
holding...."If any wind is forecast, seek shelter." These tests were conducted in dead calm.

We must not forget these are danforth-style anchors tested in mud. That is this style anchor's
strong suit. Danforths in other bottoms at times have performed miserably. What FX has going
for it is its ajustability, its take apart for storing, its lightness, and its price. Price is arguable,
considering its 'limited' use. Questionable, as P.S. mentions, is the way a danforth is constructed,
how the flukes are hinged to the shank makes it a vulnerable design. NO VEERING TESTS DONE!

JUDGED AS UNRELIABLE.....Specifically in Chesapeake Bay mud - Fortress test procedure style.
Lewmar Claw (Bruce, Manson Ray) unreliable, low holding power, does not set.
(A point well taken is that this strange three BLUNT toed hook has many cruising fans. When it
finds bottom it lies on its side, and one of its 'toes' is positioned straight down. So it will catch on
rocky seabeds and penetrate certain bottoms enough to hold - and often better than the touted
rollbar anchors.. The claw is reliably consistent 'but not a lot of holding power'. )
Unreported but prominently displayed SuperMax (adjustable to 32 and 45) is also three toed,
but more like a paw or a giant hoe with a couple radius bites removed from the blade front.
Hard to imagine this anchor excelling in anything but a muddy 'substrate.' Interesting omission!

Spade (single weighted wedge point scoop fluke) does not set. unreliable in soft mud.
Spade also has an aluminum version of the anchor. NOT tested.

Lewmar Plow (CQR) does not set.

Lewmar Delta (plow) does not set.
{Rex's Anchor Right Excel (NOT tested, but this look-alike Delta with angles that make it act
differently than a plow IN SAND, certainly should have been included. However, in mud, imco
it would have faired as well as the Delta.}

Ultra (stainless single point scoop fluke) unreliable, sometimes sets but pulls out easy.
Here's an anchor that advertises its tip weight & downturned tip. It's not turned down enough!
This non-danforth might be reconceived to work equally well in mud as sand As in a diving-style...

Rocna (single point scoop with hoop) does not set.

Supreme (curved single point with hoop) and
Manson Boss (curved single point no hoop) 'good for lunch' - after lunch they are marginal.

Mantus (tested with its hoop - NOT tested without hoop) 'good for lunch' marginal.

P.S. calls Mantus a 'diving-type' anchor. Have not run into that epithet before, as it implies
other non-diving-type anchors. Suspect P.S. got that from Mantus hype rather than proof.
"On one occasion, the (45lb) Mantus hit a snag, but then pulled free. Although the load was
not high, the anchor's roll bar bent at one of the attachment points. This vulnerability was
pointed out in our review of Mantus (see Practical Sailor April 2013 online). No other anchor
suffered any damage during testing."
Rollbars are not useful when anchoring in mud. A professional would have removed it
(couldn't find the crescent wrench) for the test.
One can imagine that welded on rollbars on Supreme and Rocna, if caught on something, will
cause major problems to anchor, windlass, or rode... rather than bending at an attachment
point, as stated, on the Mantus - which 'pulled free'... we might assume still performed as an
anchor should (in another bottom, no doubt). Rollbars should be accessorized, not permanent.
Perhaps made breakaway, or fold back, after an amount of pressure, still attached to the fluke.
.................................................. .................................................. .........................................

Nothing in this flawed Fortress test changes my previous conclusions. Each current new-gen
style has some seafloor-dynamic changes to make, imco. They are a sad disappointment here,
made to seem completely useless. Ariels & Commanders headed for uncertain cruising grounds
might pack a smaller disassembled FX16 as a kedge. And a 35lb take-apart Mantus for a storm
anchor. More uncertain is the efficacy of permanent rollbar anchors. Primarily it's their lack of
tip weight. Littlegull now has a bowsprit and no place to mount a roller for a hooped hook.
Lean toward diving-type Mantus because its hoop is an accessory. However, the anchor itself,
rather than being versatile, appears too funky, maybe kinky is the word ...to rely on as a best
primary. In a non moral sense: the devil is in the details. New anchors for awhile seem to
perform well. Owners learn to use them. Venders learn to hype them, buy them third party
certification. Sailors learn to depend on them .... but disappointment sets in when they don't
set so well, or inconveniently pull out....and the sloop drags to hell.
The devil is in the details of the anchor's designer: what's there, what's missing, what's wrong.

Quite obviously it never has been my intention to hyjack this thread. I have felt, in fact, I
seem to be dragged along by some imperitive, or frustration with so-called new perfection
anchors. Most skippers seem most impressed with how cheap or expensive an anchor is.
Most skippers go with anchors their friends use. Most consumate skippers have learned to
set their favorite anchor with care and practice, because it's not really a well designed
natural. Some skippers don't want to change because their cruising grounds don't change.

.................................................. .................................................. .....................................
*SUPERMAX (Andrew Peabody, inv) -- http://www.creativemarine.com/
In an ABS Gulfport tug boat soft-mud certification (comparison test) SuperMax beat Spade,
XYZ, Digger, Fortress (at 6to1 did not set and had no measurable tension on rode while
dragging), WM danforth, Bullwagga, aluminum Delta, CQR...Supermax tested with an all
nylon rode,set at 570lbs and began dragging at 700lbs, best of the lot. Other past tests
mentioned on site seem to show SuperMax consistently out-performing Fortress in soft mud.

ebb

03-20-2015, 08:46 AM

Fortress spent an amazing amount of money to make this trial happen. Hiring the 81ft R/V
Rachel Carson, four days of lodging, lunches and lattes, don't think the platoon of guys
were volunteers. And Chuck Hawley as an "Independent Reviewer" (formally Vice
President of Information and a board member of WetsMarine) might also have been hired
for his clout. The deck was stacked in FX anchors' favor. There are grounds to presume
that the omission of certain competitors was deliberate - as well as for certain competitors
being included, because Fortress knew they would 'take a fall'... in the mud! Money put
up for this show guarantees that Fortress absolutely comes out on top. Guess, $100,000?
A lot! It's hardware theater for the 35ft to 45ft yacht crowd.

Don't have a special anchor to champion. Own a Fortress, but haven't seen it for decades.
My original hotties, as they appeared, were Supreme, Ultra, Mantus. But sobering up soon
revealed that each has flaws. Some seem to defeat exactly what an anchor is supposed
to do. Some need to evolve into a better tool from the promise of their unique design.
Every anchor (2, 3, more?) on a 26' cruiser must be dependable in multiple beds. A small
sailboat can't fart around with an engine to precision a cranky anchor.

MECHANISTIC AND ARBITRARY FORTRESS TEST REVEALS TEST IS USELESS
If further study of the Fortress test methodology certifies their conclusions, then a poor
showing of cruising anchors in our lighter weights, makes for us almost no choice at all.
Mechanically pulling anchors at 10ft per minute for 100ft before a scope is reached to make
a standard pre-set comparison, imco, pretty much ignores what an anchor may do naturally.
Pulled incessantly thru the mud may create forces and loads that could not exist otherwise.
However, anchoring in a wind as mighty as the winch-drum on the RachelCarson with our
galvanized marvels all dragging on high, we can preview on the chart a 10 minute tale of
our favorite hook letting our favorite boat slip away to virtual doom.
Instead of a 45lb mushroom as control, Fortress should have had a couple 35ft to 45ft
yachts setting anchors. The same anchors at the same time..... THEN, we'd bear witness!

I'll always think the basic design of the Mantus a good one. Angled flat flukes are definitely
the key. Very disappointing that Mantus showed so poorly. There is a notation on the
comparison chart in the P.S. report that says: "Mantus suggests 85lb anchor for a 45'/50'
cruiser and 105lb as a storm anchor." {That suggests if we normally carry 25lb/35lb anchors,
Mantus wants 50lb/70lb weights for primary....IF CORRECT, THIS IS RATHER BIZZARE.}

So they want at least twice the anchor weight of the others to do an equal job...in mud. But
that remains to be verified for a mud seabed. Mantus' suggestion would put it well out of
contention with lighter and more impressive aluminum FX on weight alone. However it has
earned a reputation for versatility and strength. That Magical "instant set". This promising
anchor is destined to remain as a backup. It has prominent hexhead bolts under the fluke
that will gouge the deck.

ATTRIBUTES
Besides being useful for as many seafloors as possible, and having a smooth unobstructed
form, the contenders, when dropped overboard, must land on the fluke and ready to set.
It's OK for an anchor to lay on its side, if the first pull sets it. Anchors must instantly set,
within a few feet, and stay ready until called, by further tension on the rode, to go deeper.
Anchors should get set without use of an engine.

Also, would not have expected Spade anchor to be so completely 'unreliable' in soft mud.
I'm sure Alain Poiraud intended his anchor to dig into any bottom it encountered. However,
it evidently didn't at 10 fpm. Spade with its sharp point, scoop fluke, weighted wedge tip
(half of the anchor's weight is on its tip), and pronounced shoulder fins under the fluke...
has inspired the designers of each of my hotties and a number of others. Sometimes
Poiraud's whimsies are just added on, I'm sure, to a new design, because it looks important...

Tried to find the origin of the 32degree shank to fluke angle. Imco the closer the fluke is to
the shank, the easier the fluke can be pulled out or plow. A more open angle will 'point' a
well designed fluke more downward and away from the horizontal pull of the shank. My 30lb
USNavy pattern Danforth, built like a battleship, has a 33degree angle. Poiraud calls it the
'chisel' angle. Once having been a woodworker, Krenov's bevel was between 20 & 30degrees,
But heavy duty mortise chisels are 35degrees. The Spade shank angle may be OK but it
has the messiest fluke bevel imaginable...as far as anchor sediment-dynamics is concerned.
Dig his enthusiasm for unique invention, but his science is too French for me. Poiraud
influence certainly is everywhere evident on Supreme, Rocna, Ultra, and other pretenders.

Imco the fisherman slot on Supreme and Boss yacht anchors is irrelevent and misleading.
Gets instant recognition. However, Excel, especially f.s. Sarca have new ideas that are
not French impaired. Should be brought into focus. If any anchor should NOT have been
omitted, it is Sarca. Doubtful that these Fortress test results are repeatable by another
comparison series. I'm not surprised, but still disappointed & shocked at some showings...
.................................................. .................................................. ...............................
.................................................. .................................................. ...............................
Fluke area comparisons weren't done.. FX blades are bigger, longer, thinner & sharper.
Had a minor boot-in-the-butt that might be interesting to follow through on....not an idea
but something that popped up without thinking. If we already have a new-gen anchor,
and we're curious to see if changing its surface area for soft mud could make it work,
why not take some sheet aluminum or steel sheet, or even some bendable glass panel, and
shape it larger and/or longer, cut a slot somewhere in the middle of it -- just enough to
sit snug around the base of the shank at the fluke -- and slip it over the shackle end,
down the shank, to the fluke. Is it possible to increase area this way, or extend or even
split the pointy end if that's the secret. Try it out.... Will an accesory version of an added
over the top plate like this be useful as an aide.... for a modern shackle & chain duddy?

What are the pudding dynamics of single fluke new-gens? Their poor showing may be
due to fancy curved shanks trying to fly like wings & boomerangs. Hawley mentioned it....
flying anchors through sticky mud probably sculpted anchor flukes into undefined blobs.

WHILE WE'RE WAITING:
Here's another line of inquiry: In 1822 a Brit named Piper patented an anchor he called
WISHBONE. Articulated Danforth's have a single shank that splits the fluke(s) at the
crossbar/stock into two equal plates. Wishbone splits the SHANK into two pieces that arch
around from the stock at the sides of a single isosceles fluke up to the shackle.
Stock acts as the fluke hinge for both anchors ...Wishbone has no central shank to pull
up into a Windline! Perfect mud/sand anchor. But no easy way to get it back onboard!

HANS-STEALTH. http://www.hansanchor.com/ Very interesting anchor.
..... "Airplanes and anchors have a lot in common! Both have to perform with a
minimum of resistance." Have not seen Stealth first hand. Made with two roughly tri-
angular plates, one acting as the bottom diving fluke, with its twin clamshell attached
across but not attached over the top of the shank, allowing loose seafloor material to enter
.. and in theory, hug the device into the substrate, rather than deep diviing The Stealth is
'symmetrical' in the sense that a Danforth is: it interacts with the bottom on either of its
sides. The shank is hinged. The fluke blades act in a bucket form. Shank to fluke angle is
25degrees. The bend in the fluke also acts to right the device on either side it lands,
ready to be pulled into set. When on site, hit NEXT (upper left ) for a
tour of the mind behind Hans Claesson's anchor ! {don't get me started...but his fluke is
also beveled on the 'wrong' side like a lot of the guys. And while some dimensions are
given, there is no meaningful diagram with transparent specs to be found on the site.)

...........................MINIMUM RESISTANCE.... EXACTLY ! ! ................................

Fortress arbitrary testing strategy of arrogantly dragging anchors through mud, probably
also would have defanged this Stealth anchor by transforming it into a lump.

The decades old 30/32 degree shank-to-fluke ANGLE 'requirement' for all anchors, might be
tested/proved...with the assumption that the angle might be opened up more...say, five
degrees ...to see if some new single fluke anchors can be encouraged to dive in more willingly
when pulled ...rather than round out, pull up, or drag continuously on or under the seafloor.

:DWith apology to LewisCarroll:
...And then they rested on a rock Conveniently low: And all the little Anchors stood And
waited in a row. The time has come, the Walrus said, To talk of many things: Of shoes--
and ships--and sealing wax--Of cabbages--and kings--And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings..... And why New-Gen anchors are really not!

ebb

04-08-2015, 10:19 AM

Where does this shank to fluke angle come from?
Printed out a few Peter Bruce, Alain Poiraud, and Rex William Francis US Patents.... to study!!
Richard Danforth's original US Patent 2,282,566, May 1942 called TWIN FLUKE ANCHOR, has
a shank to fluke angle of 25degrees. His flukes are a split equal angle triangle. A revised US
Patent 2,576,390, Nov 1951 shows the more familiar twin fluke with a 33degree s/f.*
Fortress long flukes have adjustable 32 or 45degree s/f angle.
Interesting how stiff the descriptive language is in these legal documents.
Difficult to follow, as the words are attempting to bring forth a unique idea for a product in a
pedantic dead way.
Shank to Fluke angle: Most if not all anchor designers use the Institute of Naval Architects'
directives on anchor design. The degrees of shank/fluke separation originate from there.
The angle of most anchors is found by us users by taking a straight-edge and laying a line
from the shackle hole to the back of the fluke. The bottom line of the fluke body that
intercepts the line from the shackle to the fluke... is the shank to fluke angle....s/f.
Designers` arch or dog-leg shanks, widened shoulders on flukes and add fins, add weight and
doublers to fluke tips, in an attempt to destabllize the anchor when it meets the sea-floor....
so that any other position but the one that directs the rode to pull the shank, and set its
precisely angled fluke into the substrate. Substrates come in all textures and oozes.

Here, from the opening Description portion of Peter Bruce's argument for an (unsuccessful)
soft- mud anchor (US 5511506A) 1992 -- titled BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION...
...."Satisfactory operation of an anchor in a particular mooring bed has necessitated the anchor
to have a particular geometry including a fluke angle compatible with the mooring bed soil.

"The fluke angle is the angle formed between the fluke and a line in the fore-and-aft plane
of symmetry of the anchor extending between the rear of the fluke and an anchor line
attachment point in the forward end of the shank. At present, it is known, (see, for example,
The Quarterly Transactions of the Institute of Naval Architects, Vol.92. No.4 Oct., 1950 pps.
341-343) that for operation in a sand bed a low fluke angle in the range 23degrees/32degrees
provides peak holding power in the deepest burying anchors. Fluke angles of 25degrees to
32degrees for medium dense to loose sands generally provide satisfactory performance.

"For a relatively soft mud bed, the fluke angle for peak performance is larger and is in the
region of 50degrees to 55degrees. In sand with fluke angles over 32degrees, the moment
about the anchor line attachment point of the resultant of soil normal pressure and friction
forces on an anchor fluke is insufficient to counterbalance the sum of the moments about
the same point of soil edge resistance force on the fluke and soil resistance force on the shank
during initial penetration. The anchor is, in consequence, longitudinally unstable during pulling,
and rotates about the attachment point into a nose-down attitude wherein it fails to bury below
the surface of the mooring bed or even breaks out of the soil altogether. A fluke angle of
32degrees or less has rthus been adopted for the deepest burying anchors to permit effective
use in both hard and soft soils. The resulting disadvantage in soft soils is usually mitigated
by maximally increasing fluke area at the cost of reduced structural strength for hooking on
rocks. However, even with increased fluke area, such anchors typically provide a soft mud
performance less than 15% of their sand performance. This illustrates the problem involved
in providing an anchor with a single compromise fluke angle capable of producing high holding
capacity in both hard sand and soft mud.".....

What existing anchors ("at present" as Bruce says in his 1992 application) were used to set
the shank/fluke standards for the longitudinally stable gentlemen of the INA in 1950?
Current then were fisherman, stockless cast fluke, northill, CQR, Danforth. Of these. imco,
only the Danforth has a measurable fluke/shank angle. The patent was filed in Jan 1948.
Assume the INA had access to the idea. But why does Bruce go there (1950), that far back?

There is, of course, much more to this patent, than that quote. Interesting to what lengths an
inventor goes to come up with a rather unappealing cumbersome tool, to solve the soft mud
anchoring problem! He has added a large area extension to the rear of an approximately 28
degree shank/fluke anchor, in the form of a broad saddle for mud to sit on. Meant for mud
to slip across its surface (rather than having it stick and lump up) to create weight. Don't
see what supports all that extra plate attached in back of the regular fluke.....heavy reading!!

HANS--STEALTH may have separately solved the Bruce mud-saddle anomoly by using an extra
plate for something different... place it on top of the shank, clam-shelling over the fluke, to
create a venturi-effect ... squeezing the soil/mud on top of the fluke as it is pulled under the
seabed... attempting to keep it from crumbling and liquefying, imco, which the act of dragging
and penetration might produce. Can't speak to Han's intent, that's a guess.....Otherwise,
especially in soft mud, you have another contender with a shape-shifting mouthful of muck.

Note that Bruce says in the quote above, that over 32degrees s/f, ie, if the angle is opened
up - as I believe is the way to go when designing for all-purpose - he says the 'anchor will
rotate about its attachment point in a nose down position'. Hard to visualize, and what
anchor(s) is it that he refers to, that will rotate? Is he saying that the rode will pull on the
shank and the fluke will slip continuously with the shank falling flat, falling over, or falling
'nose-down' without catching any firm bottom....? Soft mud too soft to trip&set anchor!
(Evidently, one modern 32/45 danforth with very long, very straight blades, two of them,
will rocket unerringly thru the soup to impale anything of substance it finds in the sediment.)
You'll remember in Hawley's reading of the Fortress test pull charts, there were a lot of
unexplainable ups and downs, oscillations on the graph. An anchor may be acting as if it was
twisting or flagging rhythmically in thickened liquid mud. Is Mr. Bruce saying that here?

Fortress comparison test steady winch pull speed of 10ft per minute = 6 seconds per foot.
This does not seem excessive. Two inches per second is still mindlessly mechanical, with zero
finesse. Bruce's statement above: that an anchor with a s/f angle of more than 32degrees,
will not achieve initial set in soft sand (soft soil), because the fluke is unable to dive into the
substrate, ie, will not set because there is not enough 'edge' to soft soil at a wider s/f angle....
Don't believe this without proof!!
Assume sand here is a loose material that includes sand/muds and others less substantial.
Fortresses set and held better in Chesapeake soft muds with wider (45degree) s/f angles!

See also: The San Francisco Mud Bottom Anchor Tests.pdf (1990) AND Safety At Sea Studies -
1995 Anchor Study -- The Sailing Foundation Anchor Tests Puget Sound 1995 by Doug Fryer.
EDIT (assume now defunct independent underwriter, could not get FX37 to hold in soft mud
in a MAX sponsered Pensacola Florida anchor test, where BigMax came out on top, in 1991.)
-- Fortress can be harder to set -- when set and holding, rate best at non-veering holds.
Shank & flukes can get damaged when veered.

.................................................. .................................................. .........................................
* Bruce Marine Anchor (un-named 1991) -- http://www.google.nr/patents/US5511506
Poiraud (Sword/Oceane 2003)-- http://www.google.com/patents/US7171917
Francis (probably early Sarca 1997) http://www.google.td/patents/US5970902
Danforth (TwinFlukeAnchor 1941) US2282566
Danforth (twin fluke modifications 1948) US2576390

The 1992 Bruce anchor in this post is NOT the famous 1970s Bruce claw. (Which, imco, is the
true precursor to all the single fluke new generation hooks, beginning with 1980s Bugel.)

See Cruisersforum thread:
Anchors - Bigger is Better ? -- Page 100 of 119, there is a post with a revealing photo of a
venerable Bruce compared with a zincy LewmarClaw. An approximation of s/f angles from both
in the photo. Shank to fluke angle of the Bruce is 30degrees - s/f of the Lewmar is 38.5degrees.
Significant difference.
We see in the patent above here how precisely PeterBruce sees the consequence of the s/f
angle relationship. The Cruisersforum owner of both anchors says, "The genuine Bruce almost
always out performs the LewmarClaw in my testing."

Manson's home FAQ tells us their Ray (31degree s/f) is fabricated with steel plate, Lewmar
Claw is cast in China, and the genuine Bruce is "S G Iron."
Spheroidal Graphite Iron, is a ductile cast alloy, actually invented by one Keith Millis in 1943!
The carbon (graphite) in SG iron is in a nodular form giving this cast iron, not only malleability,
but High Tensile Strength and good corrosion resistance.

One piece single fluke hooks (all have been created by single male hominids - exception, is the
more recent Mantus) have only been popular for 25years. What can be said: 25years is but a
drop in the proverbial bucket of the lives and times of sailing ships -- and anchor designers...!

ebb

12-01-2016, 01:02 PM

2016-17 google: Anchor Test Compilation. Video #56 of an ongoing anchoring series...
SV PANOPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=159f-OjWoq0 (that's what it says)

Now, here's a guy who goes ALL OUT to find a trustworthy anchor to cruise
with!! How he does this is alone worth watching (40min).
Agree 100% with his findings.
A resourceful sailor, Steve Goodwin, gets his 8 main suspects together, invents an
underwater camera system to actually record setting, RESET, and dragging capability
of Fortress, Bruce, Sarca, Spade, Supreme, Sarca Excel, Mantus in a couple bottoms.
Compact study, with interesting conclusions. Imco, this is the best (perhaps ONLY)
video documentary to date that independently compares our fancy yacht hooks.
At first they all seem to do remarkably well....

{These tests are not sponsored by any company, nor one vendor marketing anchors.
Vendors have contributed anchors to Goodwin. Anchors tested are not "off the shelf."}

GOODWIN'S (TYPICAL) SAND/MUD/GRASS COMBO SEABEDS
Two pretenders stand out. When clean, set immediately.
But on RESET, where set anchors are pulled around by the boat 180degress,
as if by current or tide change, take a load of sea bottom on the top of their
fluke, drag without resetting, even tho they may not pull out of the seabed.
They can PLOW and NOT RESET.

From a farmer's view, basically all these anchors are plow-like. In that regard some
are better plowers than others. The last thing an anchor should do is plow. My focus
now is entirely on diving or full set hooks.

Could say a dependable diving anchor would not have an anatomical footbed to cradle
the very bottom it penetrates. Mantus works because it's thin flat plate slices into
penetration -- rather than hold, cup, spoon, scoop or bowl. We see two borg rollbar
anchors consistently detach sea floor in their 'footbed' -- which adversely moulds fluke
volume into perfect plowers..

Goodwin's test of Supreme has confirmed my critique of the anchor. Neither custom
roller nor anchor will be riding LittleGull's bow. Manson Supreme, is not an anchor for
cruising -- even a lunchhook... too many unresolved design flaws. see post 203.

Altho I was at first taken with Supreme's tough looks, it proves to have more problems
than a "supreme" should. Liked the FLAT CURVE, non bowl, fluke. Thought it would slip
bottom and dig deep. But the reset capability of an anchor to turn within its original set,
or to reset immediately if pulled out by current or tide change is an equal consequence
of instant set. There are glaring flaws with both now popular rollbar anchors.

If upgraded as critiqued, Supreme might become a primary...A small cruiser with few
anchors has no place for one that can't RESET... which both rollbar anchors seem BAD
at in multiple tries. Failures show up in Goodwin video #56. (and #63 -- see below.)

Supreme cannot be updated with grinder and welder in a home shop. Changes to save
Supreme for prosperity are found in posts on this page. Manson is blind to necessary
upgrades. It's a curvey macho looking anchor... with flaws that soon are commonly
recognized, I think, particularly since the rollbar has had its day. Its cramped pipe
sectioned fluke, heavy rollbar robbing tip weight, difficult penetration because fluke's
chisel chamfer is upside down, and rear angled gussets act like brakes on the fluke
bottom. Blunt shaft at fluke collects detritus. Both* anchors are seen in competitor
videos getting towed (often too purposefully) furrowing along sandy surfaces above &
below the water without diving in. Goodwin's videos confirm dragging bad behavior
AT THE ANCHORING SITE.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

*Goodwin left the Focna rollbar out of his Video #56 compilation. (He also left out two
big-borg newer anchors marketed as Vulcan and Boss, and new kids not promoted by
large companies that might be included for comparison, like Hans Stealth).
Everything CROCKNA disgusts me, no spew is off limits to sell this product to chumps.
Any reader wading here knows that while researching anchors awhile ago, I ran smack
into the sad Poxna fraud debacle, responsibly reported & supported in massive forums
by the Brit Magazine: Yachting Monthly.... developed chromosomal disambiguations
which make me almost gag every time I see the anchor or its perpetrator's unprincipled
promotions. ...Almost, because I won't give 'em even that.

Steve's, * Rocna Anchor Setting Video #63 -- conclusively proves Pocna, just like
the Supreme, fails miserably on short scope, and unreliably on longer scope actual
anchoring test series. It's not the rollbar that faults (altho obviously subtracts from tip
weight). But fluke does not let go of material in the first set, even 180 pulls.

Wocna and Supreme never were intelligently tested before being released to the public.
It may be, of course, that larger versions of each perform well on larger vessels. Stand
alone Goodwin unbiased comparisons of mostly one size up from our smaller anchors
are fortunately what we have now. It's probably wrong to base safety judgment on one
test series. We have had nothing for two decades but relatively few biased, rigged,
flawed industry sponsored comparisons. We better pay attention.

CLEAR & UNANSWERED BY THE MANUFACTURERS
Plainly said: When these anchors set, they will not let go of material on the top of their
flukes, thereby cancelling their ability to work as an anchor when moved.

AGAIN, both anchors, in sand-mud-grassy bottom, when pulled around 180degrees stay
buried but do not slip the seabed of their initial set, and both will pull out with a blob of
bottom, or pull a furrow like CQR or Delta plow anchors, unable to set. Expect bottom
to stick in Crocna's bowl shape fluke -- but not the FLAT curved cradle of Supreme
- now 'proven' to collect bottom on the front twothirds of the blade. Blob in effect
converts hooks into Delta-like plow performance. This is completely unacceptable.
This means they are likely to fail .....at the worst time ........WORST OF ALL:

ROLLBAR MANSON SUPREME AND ROCNA ANCHORS CANNOT BE TRUSTED

Anchors----Resetting Failures With Rocna and Some Thoughts on Vulcan
https://www.morganscloud.com/ Found full essay on the net (perhaps not complete).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

UNBELIEVABLE ANCHOR
"MANSON has 'designed an anchor' specifically for West Marine". Happened to see it at
WM store in Alameda. It cannot be explained.

First off, IT's too confused to photograph. Photo in catalog, makes it look like an accident.
Up close it looks wrong. Looks so inept you don't want to touch it. Can't be a Manson.
If anchors sell themselves because they look good like an anchor should, which, for all
testing and brouhaha, looks is really what sells a hook, this one is ONE UGLY S O B.

They won't be able to give them away. The Thing at the messy end looks retarded,
maybe supposed to be buried in concrete for an abutment. Don't need no stinkun
'butments roun'heah. Handle has a goofy curve, looks awkward and unsure, with a
blunt corner where it meets the whotchermacallit hook part......Bad Bad Bad.

More specific: the fluke is based on a three pointed star shape. One leg is the hook,
the other two are bent right angles that brake the anchor from setting.
Called the West Marine Scoop. It's weirdly anything but a scoop. Not designed to
penetrate any known seabed -- or display on your bowroller at the marina.

VULCAN [this anchor is poured, not forged]
Smith's new ALL-CAST (shank separate from fluke) made-in-China fantasy anchor:
Vulcan: its scoop is a Poiraud Spade wedge bottom doodle on a tightly curved,
impressively cast, I-bar Poiraud Spade curve shank -- intuitively ballsless for anchoring.
Deliberately contrary to smooth seabed penetrating flukes & shanks - like Poiraud Spade.
It has a precious rim around the back of the fluke, giving it the look of a bicycle seat.

It's not a real anchor.

Smith's web site, immediate impression: Garbage Speak, Vulcan Hype comes off puffed
with self-adoration-- text so blatant it's offensive.

Where are we informed that the whole anchor is a casting? What alloy is it: chocolate?
100% dishonest.
This is LYING BY OMMISSION.
That is nothing new, it's the same old same weird attitude that stinks this brand name.
WHY buy the hype? Why trust it?
VULCAST. VULCAN'T. vul CON whatever. Even if it poiraud-like works in loose sand.

Smith knows no veteran cruiser will trust cast metal over fabricated plate.** So, unable
to talk real and transparent - rollbars now almost extinct - he comes up with a doorstop.

His own words tell us the anchor is artificial.
Vulcan: Genuine Artifice..
IMCO
( the shank is oddly welded to fluke)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

**There's nothing wrong, can we say, with one piece shank & fluke cast steel anchors.
The all cast Genuine Bruce has been around since 1976. Ever see, ever hear of a
crystaline break in this anchor cast in Spheroidal Graphite Iron?
Do I care if the stink bad but cute Vulcan is malleable or not?

ebb

04-25-2017, 01:43 PM

Can't drive car without brakes. Can't sail boat around without anchors.
You'll probably never have a better opportunity to see what your anchor,
or one you heard about, does under water when you're not looking.

Turns out Steve Goodwin really is one hellofa skipper. SV PANOPE, from which
assume he creates his "1500 videos", is a 15,000 lb "If I visualize my boat without a
mast, I see a trawler". His 45' other half. The gaff sloop has a handcrafted set of
cruising sails by Carol Hasse & Co.

There are many videos by Steve on anchors and anchoring. Just ran into 'Anchor
Setting Test Commentary Video #19 of an ongoing anchoring series' that takes place
on Port Townsend Bay up in Washington. (Ebb landed too quick, doesn't explore
enough, gets factoids wrong, excuse me please.) This video introduces us to all the
old, no longer fashionable, traditional hooks, misfits, hassles, plain wrongs -- with
Supreme and Spade for good measure. And good reason, as you will discover.

Goodwin's videos seem somewhat progressive. #56 and 63 are where I started and
where my focus on Supreme finally ends. Early video, forget #, compares Supreme
with Spade, with inconclusive visual comparison that Goodwin has to tell us in video
who came out first. We have to spend time, and so far get lucky in the draw for
anchors & comparisons. Haven't found a complete list of video titles or index, yet

Spent hours thinking modifications to my Supreme 25. Goodwin also, BUT he dives
in, actually does it. Must watch PANOPE video #67 -- where he cuts off the what
-everybody-really-hates rockslot, making the tip a little heavier! Grinds off winglets
on the speartip so the fluke tip touches ground.. Welds on a sharp little keel, grinds it
off. Tries a slight turned up edge on the fluke (beginning to wonder here, myself.)
Welds large wing tips on top of the fluke at the roll bar, he thinks they'll help force
the tip down... with each modification he heads back to the boat with great
expectation, and throws the suffering anchor back in ...Initial set always perfect,
resets are all "failures".
Grinds the "ears" back off.

Goodness Gracious, what's the matter with this !@#$%^&! anchor? Nothing, not even
mutilation gets it to wake up! (I've been alone out here waking up on the far reaches
of pa-dot-org, forever grinding-on about these stupid anchors in this digital wasteland)
... so here's this special OP from Port Townscend, he's in his shop, probably acuppa
coffee ... and he looks over at the Sarcas he's collected, squints his eyes... and has,
not really all of a sudden, what amounts to: an epiphany, a new understanding...

He looks at the slots in the fluke of Rex Francis' Super Sarca (cage anchor, I call it)
and then eyeballs the Excel (which looks like a Delta from the Bonneville Salt Flats,
but its total opposite). Excel also has fluke VENTS, and we know from Goodwin tests,
these two distinct cousins, they set and reset like concrete.
So... dragging what remains of poor Supreme over to the drill press:

'NO WAY IS THIS GOING TO WORK'
he drills eighteen 1/2", rather small, holes, in 4 neat rows thru the fluke on
either side of the shank/fluke connect -- dumps it in at his favorite test site,
instant set, gets his big old trawler (it's really sumtin else!!) doing the 180s

-- and BEHOLD... the radically mortified, chopped and channeled MOPREME,
pirouettes seamlessly into a series of 10 perfect resets.
(It's alive! It's alive!! It's Alive!!!)

Goodwin's perceptive holey improv works perfect.
When he hauls it up, the only mud is on the extra narrow tip with no openings. Altho
the holes seem tiny, obligatory resets are so enthusiastic he struggles to retrieve the
anchor out of the bottom -- all 10 resets.

{Should you be inspired to ventilate your rollie anchor, re-hotdipping can weaken the
steel. Amazing mcu coating/paint Aluthane will work just as well, imco. But once
opened you may return to find a hockey puck in the can.)

Visuals, before the venting, show hard-packed mud stuck on the upright shank/fluke
connect. This is where the holes in the fluke go. Goodwin shows us the mystery slots
in the Sarca anchors.
What the holes do is solve the very problem Goodwin's tests reveal that haunts the
unholey Crockna-og-Supreme duo. And why both very different SuperSarca and
Excel* anchors are successful at what anchors are supposed to do. At what the
Crockna-og-Supreme's collectively do not do.

Looking back, they weren't fully developt by testing before being rushed to market.
AND after all this time both manufacturers have to lie about these rascals -- instead
of getting them corrected and dependable. WHY? BECAUSE IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE.

Rotna & Supreme should be sold with warning stickers that anchored boats will drag.
OR remove them from sale.

If these people don't show up, don't buy their products.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Excel Video #60 does what it's supposed to, but takes some petting.

Video # 58 Mantus, Excel, Supreme - together in the doctor's office.
'MOPREME'. Documents initial surgeries on Supreme with mixed reset resistance.

#68, it's a windy day -- he drops his Primary, as always, another test... but suddenly
we're sailing rail under with a double reefed gaff main and storm jib
-- it's a beautiful day.

************************************************** *****************
Six-pac thread: SailNet, Re: Another "Next Generation" anchor enters the market
291 posts 2013-14. Subject Mantus. As you probably know these anchor forums
never stay on subject -- and sometimes certain anchor makers take heat and vitriol.
We're pretty cool. But the Brits will have the weasels swinging from the yards...

************************************************** *****************
Guess I ought to say, never met or spoke with Goodwin. Probably should not have
taken all the liberties. Forgive me, anchors are serious business, a few grins and
grimaces can't be helped.

__________________________________________________ ________
DONE WITH IT
Briefly scrolled up this page here, a chapter of 10,000 words -- it's all difficult to read
-- especially in an age of tweets. Been my education. Lack of experience has caught
me wrong sometimes. 'We' still search for that special all purpose anchor, that
doesn't exist -- and anchor designers seem incapable of creating. In the quarter
century of new generation anchors, not one stands out as the champ...

Except one:
the oldest and most copied anchor concept of nearly all later new-gen designers
-- still appeals to knowledgeable and loyal cruisers: the droit d'ainesse ace:
Poiraud Spade..
Impressive and compleat uk site: http://www.spade-anchor.co.uk/

Another, promising but muddled with exposed hexhead bolts, the unique Mantus.
Others, conceptually flawed, perhaps dangerous, well distributed by indifferent
companies.
Forums seem to suggest a significant number of owners have no idea how anchors
behave on the sea floor. Plenty information, little curiosity.
(As I've been saying, designers, some designers, also prove they have no in depth
idea what anchors do.)
An anchor that doesn't know what it is doing can take your life.

Mind set that informs and sells anchors to the public is the same as sells deodorant.
We're in the armpit of constant anchor stink.
That's why the Goodwin/PANOPE videos are so valuable.

Choosing a cruise anchor is a dangerous game. Take Care. Stay vigilant and angry.
Sure is a lot of fun.
Adios, Ebb
================================================== =

"you know when you put a stick in water it looks bent? That's why I never take baths."
echuta 13, The Amp Garage

ebb

10-01-2017, 02:09 PM

What with the massive ruin and wrecking of September's 2017 Harvey, Irma, & Maria
-- and one weather predictor's forecast of violent global warming hurricanes:
"We'll have the weather we always have, but it will be more severe."

Might take a look at this excellent video with your boat under your feet.
YouTube
Hurricane survival anchoring tactics (staying on your boat) - sailing Uma [Step 54]

Young sailor takes us through Matthew (10/4/2016), survival on a single anchor,
24hrs in 24mins -- shows us his
"3 basic steps.
Protection from wind, waves, and other boats.

"Also get a... B I G... A S S ...A N C H O R !"
.
.
.
(not just any anchor -- find out by watching his video.)
Skipper Dan svUMA hyas shown up on another thread here:
Tech Forum >addendum Electric Outboards< post 21
.
.
.

c_amos

10-04-2017, 10:29 PM

I found the Link by searching YouTube, here it is;

https://youtu.be/52vu7bbvqC0

I am glad he made it, I agree with his initial assessment, but I prefer to have more then one anchor.... I rode out hurricane Noel aboard Faith, my Manson Supreme had the load but my fortress(s) were set as a backup just in case... I agree with mis statements about the humming, vibrating, and banging of the wind.... really much more loud then one might expect!

ebb

10-05-2017, 08:59 AM

Current experienced cruiser forums advise much more conservative
approaches to storm anchoring, some advising to put out as many
as 4 anchors. Some tandem on a single rode.
Craig, setting at least two anchors for a blow is the way it should go.
Your hurricane ride on Supreme impressed me immensely. Of course,
I didn't remember you doubled with Fortress. I've whole-hogged on
Supreme long time because of your positive experience with it.

When I get there, littlegull will carry two Primarys: a 35lb galv and
same size aluminum Spade as stern. Take apart Fortress, Maybe a
Mantus as storm. Current Mantus is experimental. It has to up-
grade into a simpler, more intelligent anchor.

Pair of Spades are also take-aparts but essentially pin together
almost instantly, rather than Mantus' requiring six bolts, wrench, all
PITA small parts incl lock washers -- 4 of which have large sharp
hex heads sticking out of fluke bottom, where we would naturally
down it on deck! Stupid... And roll bar too big and prone to fouling,
below and on the bow. Mantus flat creased fluke blade has no equal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The large mantid (triangular head, long slender body) UMA set for
storm Matthew, not knowing its size, looked imco, to what might be
regularly set as the primary. That the monster performed flawlessly
says huge about design and 'deep set' stability. In 24 hrs of chaos,
UMA never GPSed an inch!!

Dan's* anti-chafe procedures are good. Imco chafe protection like
firehose should always be lashed to chocks, not the line, and be
larger diameter than the rope it cradles, for water wash.
*That will have to do. Haven't found their names yet. Youtubes are
very well done, bright, energetic, topped with confidence. . They
are doing/done everything right on the upgrade of their cruiser!

Later EDIT {OK. Previous assumptions here have been erased. Went
back for a second look to "Sailing Uma, step 55" - Post storm, where
he puts the boat back together. He winches the two rodes in
simultaneously, port and starboard. Each rode is spliced to its own
chain, hauled onto the bow thru large rattling chocks and over deck
with the cockpit port and starboard sheet winches. This means of
course both chains must each be attached to a single Crosby 209A
shackle. There's a simplicity & logic to this system, riding one hook.}

Mantus, when finally hauled in using spinnaker-pole and main
halyard, reveals the buoy trip line fouled tightly twice around fluke
and shaft, "but didn't seem to bother it too much."

He set no bridle/snubber either. But two 7:1 rodes may have acted
to 'soften' surges. Single nylon line working inside chafe protection
at the chock has been known to melt. Two lines mo'betta, sharing
the work. If I set two anchors to ride out a storm, it would be with
separate rode, as you say. Line always (altho I have no experience)
seems like the weak link in a storm survival situation. BUT you must
be holding a "badass anchor." And new quadplait oversized rode.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Accessing the Steve Goodwin SV PANOPE YouTube series anchor
tests, you might be persuaded, if you're cruising, to check out his
Supreme and Rocna reset tests, where both act badly because the
flukes at initial set hold bottom material, won't let it go, won't let
it slip off when pulled around 180 from initial set, as in tidal change,
causing the hooks to plow or pull out, unable to reset, because they
fouled. Don't want this sequence of events at an unknown anchorage.

What have you experienced? Imco the Goodwin tests are authentic,
even if some sailors don't like the short scope and quick 180s. I do.
When it lets go, we want to know with what anchor we trust below.

Haven't been looking in on SailFar. I mean to, but I'm so jealous
and embarrassed. Hope you are well and enjoying the sailing life.

Thanks for the blue line!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TEN ATTRIBUTES OF AN ALL PURPOSE ANCHOR.
Here are seven Spade Safety Criteria from their uk site: anchor

1. must dig in fast.

2. must bury deep.

3. give max holding without dragging.

4. have constant resistance to movement
---even if eventually moves under extreme load.

5. must hold despite wind or current shifts. (reset)

6. rode must not foul the anchor.

7. must be strong enough to withstand very high loads.

. Does not require special mooring line
---or special anchoring technique.

. Snug in bow roller / self launching / self retrieving.

. Easily dismantled.

The range of Spade anchors should be CS certified. And Mantus too!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Crosby SHACKLES
are the best American made galvanised shackles money can buy.
C. makes can't-fail-within-their-rating industrial rigging products.
Ubicquitous ( copied by others) trademark RED PIN in a shackle
once signaled an alloy pin twice as strong as an unpainted pin.
They make all kinds of shackles. The red pin is now a brand
mark. But always is a double strong alloy pin in a Crosby shackle.
Nowadays any colored pins make any shackle seem more special.

Defender** stocks 2 kinds of Crosby: G-209A and G209.
The working load limit for a G-209 3/8" shackle is one metric ton.
WLL (embossed on side of bow) for a G-209A 3/8" shackle is two
metric tons (4410 lbs). Pin: 7/16"
Defender carries the full range of each 'forged-quenched-tempered'
screw-pin shackle. However, there is a red alloy pin in the G-209.

but Twice as strong G-209A - with alloy pin that is plain galvanise,
not red - looks like regular shackle except for numbers embossed
on the bow. Whole shackle has twice the working load of G209.

Is there any reason not to have a double strong bow shackle on
your best bower?
MANTUS* 316s.s. (3/8"- WL 3/4 ton) -as does any s.s. shackle
all have lower working loads than the standard G-209 Crosby.
Crosby does not make s.s. bow shackles.
D shackles are called chain shackles by Crosby.
Counterfeit Crosby bow shackles are around, probably not in USA.

*Mantus now has unique oversize eyeless pin ss anchor shackles.
Also sell galv. bow shackles. They do not say where these shackles
are made.
They are otherwise spec'ed, and the eyeless pin is worth discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AS OF 2/2018
** Defender in their 2018 Catalog tops their nameless Crosby list
with a Titan brand. Immediately flash: China!. Yup, TitanMarine is
a trade name of CMPCanadaMetalPacific. Why else name asian
manufactory after an ancient race of Greek giants? {CMP rescued
PeterSmith's RocnaAnchor after its infamous fraud debacle. Now
advertised as "Original Rocna", they for a decade have not been
steel plate fabricated in NewZealand, but in China with cast metal
flukes.} That's an original Smith-style lie.

ADVERTISED 'ORIGIONAL ROCNA' ARE NOT ORIGINAL ROCNA.
This deliberate word play is meant to deceive. Why do it -- if you
can't be transparent about materials and origin of your current
anchors -- it's a lie -- and is in line with the fraud of lesser steel
grades Rocna got caught substituiting when they secretly moved
anchor manufacture to China.

His 100% cast anchor:
Vulcan (Roman metalwork god) fluke & shank are poured, not
forged, in China. Who can say CMP chain/ shackles aren't made
in China? Which is not to imply the products are faulty -- but their
true origin is hidden -- cast metal for anchors is never revealed
-- NO product actually made in Canada, as we are led to believe.

And here's our oldest marine outfitter: Defender, featuring these
imposters dressed in their white-skin name in catalog and internet.

Why trust these people?
Any of this con equal one true Crosby? that you trust your boat to?

CanadaMetalPacific CMP, as far as I can find, is a global sourcing
distributor, based in Canada, with all metal products, including
their extensive range of Martyr anodes, made in China by $2.50hr
martyrs.

Go ahead,
buy the half fast Titan 3/8" shackle for $6.50 less than the G209A...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.

New beginnings are often disguised as painful endings. Lao Tzu
.

ebb

10-08-2017, 10:51 AM

Goodwin's 90+ sv PANOPE Youtube videos, taken together, are an
extraordinary tour deforce, and gift to us. But Video #56, taken alone,
is the most reliable anchor 'compilation' we'll ever experience. It's a
deep five part study of common anchors of our time. This one video
says it all, surely the most significant finding ever put together.

Notable what anchors are not included -- without comment. Crocna:rolleyes: anchor
totally ignored in this summary survey. ...You've been reading these past posts,
you know this thing-a-ma-pete hook has personally been tossed into the
Pit of Doom.

WET
This focus must bother some sailors a lot. But a lot really is in limbo if you are
not yet cruising, or limit cruising to certain areas.

FIXED FLUKE-BLADE STYLE-GALV.STEEL ANCHORS
rollbar flat-creased Mantus.
rollbar flat-curved Supreme.
rollbar convex Super Sarca.
rollbar scoop Rocna,
will, by all rights when pulled around in a 180 rotation after initial set, turn
through the seafloor - and still buried or not, reset. No reset if pulled around
with sea floor stuck in the fluke. PANOPE videos show clumps stuck on specific
shafts. Supreme-Fail. Rocna-Fail.

Mantus - 50% tip weight, makes a fuss in 180, but resets instantly. (Video #62)

Vented Sarca - 33%, fails reset. Convex blade fluke, downcurved tip - dragged.
YET Rex Francis' original Sarca, in a heftier version did well in later videos.
(#43>#48). From a dry point of view: a clever design, but not simple enough.
From mixed performances, it can drag instead of reset. It's probably best where
it originally was intended: on the bow of small Aussie fishing boats.

(If you like plow style anchors, Rex has created the vented EXCEL 20%, which
looks like Simpson-Lawrence Delta plow, but completely corrects & obsoletes it.
Australian Excell & Sarca -- two of only four anchors anointed by Goodwin.)

It is true, and obvious, that blade anchors won't always reset in all bottoms.
But if they clear off material during 180, or shortly after: they have to reset.
We have to understand our Prmary. No maybes. When a heavy tip weight
anchor pulls out, we're pretty sure it will dig back in and reset everytime.

Both Supreme and Rocna are not dependable. They have problem tip
weights. And real serious problems resetting after rotation.
Goodwin's svPANOPE Video #56: Tip weight: Mantus 50% - Supreme 23%
- Crocna 30% (guess) - Spade 42%, as test measured, home page says 50%.

DRY -- AN UNCOMMONLY COOL LOOKING ANCHOR
Masterfully designed with common low carbon A36 steel. Flawlessly fabricated
inTunisia. (wage: $3.00 hr equivalent ) Welding doesn't alter tensil strength.
Assume bent shaft can be persuaded back straight without weakening.
WET
Wedge fluke SPADE is known to tumble or pull out in a 180. It does not readily
collect seabed. (Not always the case, there's sticky mud out there.) Yet, NO roll
bar Spade helped by its heavy tip resets immediately. Certainly witnessed in the
GoPro record we now have. It tumbles probably because the tetrahedral under
body is unlikely when set to move sideways as the shaft rotates. Imco, sideways
pull pushes the anchor up and out of set.
[YouTube: Goodwin SV PANOPE. Spade videos, #12, #13, #55 and #27, #64.]

The Spade seems to overcome pulling out and other limitations, like its scoop
fluke, imco. Could be fluke-top geometry is a perfect fluid concavity - that other
Spade-inspired anchors have failed to copy correctly.
{Have seen no proof that a concave spoon shaped fluke top actually contributes
to an anchor holding better than flat or convex. It is a myth..}

Spade shaft slender entry thru fluke with carefully fabricated triangular section
may also help shed seabed without need for vents. Steel Spade is smooth galv,
and signature yellow paint helps slip sticky material.

Assume deepest set can be achieved with an unencumbered flat blade design.*
Wedge volume must displace more sea floor to set deep. May not always.
It's my opinion, of course, these limits on Spade. They seem in balance, coming
together in an anchor better than its compromises. Spade scoop fluke geometry
is the most copied by all modern single fluke anchors. Cuts thru kelp. Holds in
rock. Afterall, the design works: When Spade pulls out: we count on reset.

Housed, on display in a bow roller, the open end tetrahedron looks unfinished
like something's missing, like a couple lithium batteries must've fallen out.

Could say The Spade has a forgiving quality = Reliability. That's a friendly thing.
It's about trust.
Many cruisers depend on steel Spade for their Primary.

Yet to be invented: SUMSUCH - ALL-PURPOSE CRUISING ANCHOR
*Imagine a hybrid Spade/Mantus. Creased Mantus flat fluke married
to a curved 3-sided Spade shank with a very sharp tetrahedral wedge
under fluke packing tip weight and Poiraud's clean single pin
mortise/tenon innovation. NO HOOP. Toolless take apart.

Visual inspection of the S80 steel Spade shank in my possession - what can be
seen inside with a 1300 lumen led flashlight - seems equal to the galvanise
outside. There's a tiny breather hole visable inside the shackle cutout.
There to help molten zinc get into the narrow end. Imco keeping it open can
help clear mud from living inside.

Rust problems on a sound anchor? Aluminum-filled MCU coating ALUTHANE
will check corrosion as well if not better than regalvanising, or any zinc paint.

Out of the gargle of successful and partially successful anchors, Goodwin's 4
only 'never-fail' set/reset anchors are: Super Sarca - Excel - Mantus - Spade.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DEFENDER UNLOADING MANSON ANCHORS
Schaefer, importer of Manson Anchors, seems to have ended their contract.
Defender is having a final? closeout sale of every Boss and Supreme.
As of 1/1/18, Schaefer's home page has yet to say anything about their deal
with Manson. But Schaefer has a deal for you: a Manson Danforth style Racer
anchor, $212.35 now for $35 ! (What's that called, plummet pricing?)

Wonder if Goodwin has anything to do with this...? (Schaefer axing Manson.)
Don't know if Schaefer had exclusive US import concession. Glad they quit.
Schaefer is a precision tool company. Disconcerting to find Manson Anchors
and its turgid copywriting on Schaefer's internet home page.

Manson Boss meant to be the answer for power boats generally unable to
house rollbar fluke Supreme. Marketed as a powerboat anchor. (focus may
be a mistake.) It could be a pretty good anchor. Maybe just never caught on.
PB owners probably aren't anchor style conscious. Boss attempts to be an
anchor that on seafloor orients itself to penetrate without needing an
appendage.
Design result seems to have been to do it without increasing tip weight by
adding fluke area! Boss also has a disconcerting and useless 'rock slot' shank
that visually dooms the design. Manson & Rocna both depend on customers to
test their new gen anchors -- rather than copacetic inhouse R&D to work bugs
out -- before going into production and foisting thousands of half fast designs
on world-wide sailors. Good enough not good enough for any best bower.

RollBars on anchors are a passing design fancy. They are an unnecessary
addition like a crutch, and take away from tip weight, a proven benefit for
instant setting. Imco they are on their way out and essentially obsolete.

INDEPENDANT ANCHOR TESTING
Turns out tip weight really is what first delivers a successful single fluke anchor.
Not always, of course.
Our smaller lighter anchors benefit from tip-weight.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ANCHOR QUALITY
The only people responsible for quality testing anchors are the makers, There is
no agency, society, third party that oversees 'recreational anchors'. There are
'certifiers': Lloyds, RINA and others hired by the manufacturer to certify materials
used, but not construction methods. Costwise, it's understandable no 3rd party is
regularly seafloor testing -- or ultimate shaft to fluke bend and break testing.

EVERY AUTHENTIC COMMERCIALLY SOLD YACHT ANCHOR SHOULD SUBMIT TO
A VOLUNTARY Certification Society CS PROOF TEST.
This is a decades old shank to fluke certification proof test that all makers sign on
to. Some don't. Some won't.
imco, All commercially sold yacht anchors ought to be rated exactly like chain
and shackles are, with WLL (working load limit), and a modified - UBS rating
(ultimate breaking strength). This will help put anchors on the same sea floor.
Brute strength does not necessarily make a first class anchor. Manufacturers that
hide or omit common specifications cannot be wholly trusted. Nor trusted at all!

Manufacturer's home page dragging videos, beach/underwater, are always a con.
Hard to guess whose product tops all the others?
'Responsible' is not an operative word here.
'Reliable', often used -- but impossible to prove.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When you depend on an anchor, be sure yours is dependable..... Loud Sue
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You never enjoy the world aright,

till the sea itself floweth in your veins,

till you are clothed with the heavens

and crowned with the stars:

and perceive yourself to be the sole

heir of the whole world.... Thomas Traherne 1636 - 1674

.
.
.