-
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.
-
mud in Manson Supreme roll bar - suggested improvement
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!
-
Borrow my Manson?
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
-
Sail Magazine (Oct '06) Santa Cruz tests
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.
-
The Sail Magazine article is posted on Rocna's website in pdf format, starting on page 2
http://www.rocna.com/press/press_061...il_testing.pdf
-
SAIL testing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ebb
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!
Here is a chart of the testing results:
http://www.rocna.com/images/remote/w...chart_740w.jpg
-
Manson reply
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!
-
Double Jaw Toggle (nixed)
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!
-
Sail On Anchors
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."
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill
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.
-
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!;)
-
minor update anchors (Feb '07)
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?
-
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/det...ct_id=MAN:S25G
West Marine is charging $245 for the Manson. I guess you would save shipping costs
http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs...allpartial/0/0
Rocna has a distributor in Florida that is selling the Rocna 10kg for $329
http://storesense4.megawebservers.co...taloglist.html
The choice has now become more painful
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ebb
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
craigsmith
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
-
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 now is truly a case of "you get what you pay for".
-
Now now Craig...
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/w...rces-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
-
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
-
More anchors.....
: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/us...4/3anchors.jpg
-
anchor comeuppance - the arrival of the third generation...
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???
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ebb
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...!
-
(post 121)what you say has no sway, buddy
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?
-
Manson update and a question
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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'!
-
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 to the skinny.
-
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.
-
1 Attachment(s)
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/acolhime...me%20page.html
-
1 Attachment(s)
And yet another option if you can find one...
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
commanderpete
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.
-
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.
-
history may have turned another corner
Bent Manson Supreme - Cruisers & Sailing forums [google]
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forum/f...2270.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
-
weakest link delema: the anchor shackle
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.
-
the missing link
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...."
-
Ebb,
As usual, excellent analysis. Just to break it down for any who missed it;
Quote:
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.
-
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.
-
Swivels
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
-
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.
-
-
too good to be true?
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/f1...D/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!
-
Acco Swivel
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?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ebb
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?
-
no sniveling going on here
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)
-
By Jove!
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
-
Well I hope you guys are right
;) I had to order some pieces for my propane locker installation from Defender, so I had them throw in an Acco swivel.:D
-
Acco anchor swivel
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
-
Acco swivel pins
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
-
ZRC Galvanizing Compound
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
-
letters to Peerless
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.
-
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.
-
NO Acco Chain Rode Swivel failures yet on the net.
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
-
3/8 Crosby Forged Shackle Will Not Fit 1/4 Ht
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.
-
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chance
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.
-
sorry!!! The chain you ordered must be
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
-
(missing) Manson Supreme anchor shackle
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:
-
Thanks for the feedback, I'm going to 5/16 HT
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)
-
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....
-
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!
-
5/16 Ht Chain Is In The Mail
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!
-
Chain vs Line
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?
-
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..
-
Anchor Review
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
-
petersmythsboatgear
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.
-
Methinks the Smiths protested too much
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:
-
Rocna FAIL!
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.
Quote:
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; 3 Weeks Ago at 09:50 AM.
The tests results are here.
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. (warning, 17 pages long!)
-
Limp Rocna and The Fabrication Ultimatum
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.
-
Rocna Slammed
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
-
The Rocna Identity
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.)
-
no smith feed back yet
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
-
Somewhere on the Rocna.com site you'll find the WMupdate.
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.
-
Thurs. 29 Sept 2011 - Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
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.
-
A Second Wind for Rocna
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!
-
Canada Metal Memo on Brand Confidence & Statement From the Rocna Anchor Designer
http://www.canmet.com/content/resour...CNA%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)
-
Yachting and Boat World forums Yachting Monthly's Scuttlebutt
(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.
-
Yachting Monthly's Scuttlebut and how forums can be Dangerous
[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)
-
YBW Rocna thread censored
"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.
-
"Rocna Anchor acquired by CMP" back again!
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.
-
We should make a habit to always buy american made products.
-
new generation american anchors
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
-
Rocna debacle update
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!
-
Spade Spoon and Seablade mentioned in previous post / RINA Approval Certificate.
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.
-
CMP Global new LIFETIME Rocna Warranty
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....."
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ebb
.....
Hope you find it.
What's your take?
Well, here is the link.
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...
-
Voyaging with a China Rocna ?
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!
-
BoatUS magazine Feb/Mar 2012 RECALLS
(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.
-
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/201...chors-are.html
Summation:
Quote:
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
-
Old Santa Cruz anchor tests
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
-
A cast of characters - Rocna plot continues
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.:(
-
Mantus (break down anchor)
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/det...ct_id=MAN:S25G
-
The Boss
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/SiteP...DEO%20TEST.htm
**The Boss comes in "black" as well as "mirror" and galvanized.
-
Manson produces a new anchor that cannot be carried on deck
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/...1&d=1345174762
** Anchor Roller thread #58
***This piece of gear is untried, untested. It remains to be seen if it performs as assumed.
-
the F factor
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/...ount-55743html
this is the address without google's edit (>>>.cruisersforum.>>>/forums/f118/building-an-anchor-mount-55743>>>)
-
more on Manson anchor housing
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.
-
Practical Sailor Feb2013 "Small Anchor Reset Tests.....
....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
-
Practical Sailor Veer Test
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.
-
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.
-
Captain Craig
.......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!
-
another catalog
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:
-
Strategy selling the Rocna Fisherman's Anchor
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!
-
"Bends and Breaks - Anchor Shank Strength"
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