New Generation Anchor

[ebb]

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.] CMP/Rocna may be trying to say they are getting the cast fluke anchors certified SHHP - by somebody.

Did not see hype on the site as to what anchor metal specs are now being marketed by CMP/Rocna.
But they clearly know that if they mention SHHP enough times fools will simply associate the acronym with all CMP/Rocna anchors.
It's easy to see how uninformed buyers will be impressed and sucked-in visiting the website. And easy as well to see that CMP owns the subterfuge. It's possible that CMP/Rocna is trying to say they are not going to get RINA SHHP cerification for the cast fluke range of anchors. So what does it matter?
Buyer beware. ROCNA HAS NO RINA CERTIFICATION FOR SHHP IN SMALL TO MEDIUM YACHT SIZE RANGE ANCHORS.

I hope interested sailors keep on this case.
It is time now for boat owners worldwide to lobby for a new big time, real time, unbiased comparison test between all popular anchors.

Bye. Sincerely intend to leave this subject fester and let it be. Done for now!
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________
*A picture of this certification document appears on P.Smith's website. The 'Applicant is Canada Metals (Pacific) Limited.' The 'Manufacturer is Shanghai Pangtong Business Enterprise Development Co, Ltd.' Given the strange 'current' date for 'approval' (5/25/2011 valid until 5/24/2016) which certainly appears way out of sync with the certification process stated in the document of anchors seabed tested at Auchland N.Z. 12/3/2008, that is for anchors with >rolled steel shanks welded to rolled steel blades< that subsequently had 'mechanical tests' at Shanghai 1/18-19/2011..... IMCO the document is counterfeit. Or procured fraudulently by Canada Metal (Pacific) Limited as stated on the 'Approval Certificate' dated as in the second sentence above. without actual testing by RINA.
It may be that RINA actually has rescinded all their Rocna Certifications and this is a fake interim document until CMP Global buys some sort of certification to boost sales. There is no proof for this, except what I've downloaded. 'Applicable Anchor Weights are for 4.1kg range to 110.0 kg'. Those are the common yacht anchors chandleries stock and catalog, that we all are talking about here. Except those anchors NOW for sale are NOT the anchors described in this certification. 'Approved Drawings (NOT shown) are dated 6/26/2009, 3/17/2010.' The paragraph on top of the 'applicable anchor weights' specifies that "Fabricated SHHP anchors with rolled steel plate shank welded to rolled steel plate fluke..." are what the approval certificate is specifically for,
IN MY OPINION THIS IS A POORLY ALTERED CUT-AND-PASTE FRAUD, PROBABLY PECULIAR TO THE P.SMITH SITE. THE ONLY REASON FOR BEING THERE IS AS A RUSE TO CONVINCE UNWARY VISITORS TO THE WEBSITE THAT ROCNA ANCHORS HAVE RINA SHHP CERTIFICATION. NOT SO. The hype on the website says the anchors are "SHHP type". BUT THEY ARE NOT TESTED BY RINA.
NOT A SINGLE CHINA ROCNA HAS SHHP APPROVAL CERTIFICATION - ESPECIALLY FROM RINA.
There can be no other explanation for this document to exist and apparently validated by a RINA rep whose name is on the document.

[ebb]

google>
Rocna Anchors - Recently Acquired By CMP Global - Announces ...
>
nasailor.com/ .../rocna-anchors-recently-acquired-by-cmp-global-ann...

These addresses are verbatim off a google first page to my prompt: rocna anchor warrenty. (sic)


This is a second party announcement of a new "lifetime" warranty that includes the bending of shanks - 1/24/12 (yesterday at this writing.)
ALSO find the complete warranty info on the Rocna home page and note that the bending and deformation quarantees are there also.
Ifs, ands, and buts are spelled out seemingly in detail - complete with lawyered list of can'ts and don'ts - it requires study.
Make your own judgement on this new bending and deformation promise the new owners of the manufacturing licence are putting forth.
CMP have yet to make a statement of their own, that I have come across. They seem to like to appear being quoted from a distance.

Warranties once we just glanced at. Now we better study the deal befor we purchase.

The media newsite is called: north american sailor. New to me, and imco new to the internet.
On the face of it, given Rocna's many undenyable recent failures, and the furor on many forums, not only the Yachting Monthly Scuttlebut,
this seems like an unusually obscure venue to announce such an extraordinary quarantee.
Maybe there will be more. Certainly on the Roccna site.

Don't care what the outcome is.
This is still an outfit that has chosen cheap steel and cheap foreign labor to make their product.
Their problems have come about because they chose that route, and imco still make anchors of questionable authenticity and provenance.

Hope you find it.
What's your take?

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________
Later EDIT
Since August 2011, when this began, Rocna and CMP and Holdfast have essentially been silent on the internet, except for sometimes appearing on public forums, disquised as gormless mouthpieces, trying to plug a few tongues into the leaking dike. The main press have been disinterested in this as a story. Except Practical Sailor who published two timely informative articles. Only one b&m chandlery has done anything about the deception and that relatively insignificant. P.Smith tried unsuccessfully to mend things on his web page, and managed to be seen as lying to the world.
By and large this controversy has been an internet event.
One online chandlery I was dealing with, that stocked Rocnas, had not been informed by anybody. sailboatowners.com have now removed Rocnas from their catalog. THEY DID THE RIGHT THING in the interest of sailboat owners! ...But they don't stock Supremes!
Only hearsy has been active, bad news gets around. But the vast majority of consumers haven't been, aren't being, informed directly by anybody who should have their safety foremost. The marine press should be held responsible for not investigating and reporting. There has been no recall of limp china Rocnas by the new responsible owner/manufacturer, CMP, that were manufactured in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011.

BUSINESS AS USUAL AND BOAT OWNERS BE DAMNED.
And CMP/Rocna goes forward as if nothing has happened and everything is just peachy! West Marine continues to stock and sell china-Rocnas. But we read they do have trouble keeping Supremes in stock!
There are skippers out of the internet loop (or out of touch cruising) that don't know they have a time-bomb at end of the rode.
If anything positive comes from this, imco it primaryly will have been the work of persistent ybw posters on Yachting Monthly's Scuttlebut forms.
In an era where transparancy garners trust and respect, Rocna, CMP and Holdfast, taken together, have been about as open and opaque as a black hole. They have no respect for their customers. How can there be any respect for them?

TOO MANY BAD ANCHORS
CMP/ROCNA HAS NO REPUTATION except for promises in a warranty. You use the anchor first, risk your life, test the warranty.
For reality cruising you better have a better anchor or two in reserve because a bent shank probably won't reset or be usable again. Especially in a blow.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________
Craig, Thanks for your thoughts - and the blue line link - in your following post, #183. I totally concur that it's all about damage control!
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________

Graig, so what the hell, your boat is holed on the rocks, but after you ship the bent Rocna back to where you bought it, you'll get the money back, Right? That is if you can prove you have used it within warranty restrictions. Yes, I can see it now, a personal letter from the designer PeterSmith...."Gidday Rocna owner, sorry for your loss, but we have determined our anchor could not have deformed under the conditions you have stated, therefor....."

[c_amos]

.....

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...

[ebb]

What is that about 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating?'
Or maybe 'the devil's in the details....'


Somebody on the ybm Scuttlebut site points out that Peter Smith

on his sailboat cruiser carries New Zealand made Rocnas.


Right on, brother!

[ebb]

(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.]
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.

[epiphany]

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:

Excellent (these anchors consistently held to or close to 5,000 pounds at several different locations and scopes and could also be stowed easily on a bow roller or in a locker)
Fortress
Manson
Hydrobubble
Rocna
Spade

Good (these anchors set held over 1000 pounds)
Bullwagga
Delta
Oceane
Sarca
Wasi

Poor (these anchors failed to produce quantifiable results)
Claw
CQR
West Marine Performance 20
XYZ

[ebb]

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!

Also like to see real tests done on chain-to-anchor swivel connectors.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________
The Yachting Monthly (www.ybw.com) Scuttlebut on 'Rocna Anchors Acquired by Canadian Metal Pacific' is now moved to page one of their humongous list of threads.
Energy has perhaps run thin.... Everybody's waiting, likely not holding their breath.... Replys are at about 1700 with 115,351 views.

__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________




LATER EDIT 11/29/2015
WARNING. The next 20 posts, except for one from Capt Craig Amos writing from the BVI,
reminding me, reminding us all, that there are better things to do in this world than bury
oneself in a measly anchor controversy...ebb's posts are pretty obvious a hijack of what
is meant to be an informative discussion.
Had hoped there would be feed back, of some sort, from where he found himself... which
eventually it turns out is to question all the anchors themselves: what they are actually
capable of, or not.
Not accepting manufacturer's hype, industry sponsored comparison testing, or what PR
omit to tell the public and represses about a mediocre performing anchor... or outright lies.
Became radicalized.
REALLY APOLOGIZE. THIS NEVER WAS INTENTIONAL..
"ebb. When the tide goes out: as in: We should leave before the ebb tide." BWSS Glossary
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
"As my dear old grandfather Litvak said (just before they swung the trap), you can't cheat an honest man.
Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump." Whipsnade

[ebb]

is the title of the SailNet thread http://www.sailnet.com/forums/genera...ntinues-6.html *

where MAINESAIL -in one shot across Rocna's bow- summerizes the debacle. And even tho he admits to still being a fan of the rocna anchor, announces that he is so disgusted by the Smiths and their stooges that he is retiring his NZ rocna and buying a Manson. There's only so much a man can take.

REX/SARCA AnchorRight, also an admirable man throughout this fracas, steps into our USA side of the debate with a series of posts that attempt to set straight the Sarca side of the story. I don't know why SailNet rather than the monster Yachting Monthly Scuttlebut thread.
For us it is a chance to better understand the genesis of New Generation Anchors. Or rather: New Zealand Generated Anchors that Sarca, perhaps rightfully so, was first hoopful generator (not to forget Beugle/Wasi as the first first!). Sarca is not available here in the US, my understanding.

From the marketing standpoint we now have a disturbing new 2012 phenomena where all major players seem to have produced their own versions of competitor's signature anchors. A bad sign. Like depreciating your lead product. Believe that only Sarca has NOT been DIShonored with a competitor's imitation. Have to remember Rex has his own new imitation Delta on the market. And he has time to pull anchors around on the beach.


As an observor, my own level of disgust with Rocna has been evident here for months. I will never be able to admire the rocna concept with any trust or pleasure. Rocna to my mind now stands like a rock for the wrong we humans can do when conducting business. The Rocna attitude, perceiving others and customers as suckers and chumps, also seems to have infected Canadian Metal Pacific and made them appear uncaring and irresponsible.
[THIS is not sailing OR working on the boat, IS IT? Tired of being disgusted. No more energy to appear righteous.
"Go easy. If you can't go easy, go as easy as you can."]

Defender Industries, oldest marine supplier in the US, has to date a sterling reputation. And a rep for not gouging the public like WorstMarine is often perceived. Their 2012 print catalog does NOT show any Rocnas for sale. Their website DOES. They reproduce the hype that comes with selling any product, any anchor, but the pitch honestly makes no claims of 'holding power' certification. Prices are getting up there: a Rocna rated for our A/Cs is a 33lb at $419.99. A Supreme 25lb, also rated for A/Cs is $379.99. So it does look like pound for pound the CMP Rocnas are cheaper than Supreme's - by about $2.50 per lb. Maybe Defender is discounting them!? And unless you can go pick up your rubba Rocna at the warehouse just wait until you see what shipping does to the cost ! ! ! Hamilton Marine carries Supremes (but NOT Rocnas) for about the same price.

ROCNA SELLS THESE ANCHORS IN DEFENDER ONLINE AS "ORIGINAL."
THEY ARE NO WAY ORIGINAL.
CMP ROCNA's ARE MADE WITH ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STEELS THAN THE ORIGINAL.
NO CMP ROCNA's ARE CERTIFIED BY A THIRD PARTY.
NEITHER THE ANCHORS NOR THE FACTORY ARE ABLE TO BE CERTIFIED FOR SHHP. (still true as of 11/2015)
The original NewZealand/Canadian anchors are superior to the Rocnas made in China. They are the ONLY Rocna's that you could have on your boat.
Original Rocna's ended manufacture in 2007.

Defender Catalog hype talks loud about how strong the China shank is, but avoids mentioning the cast fluke. The portrait photo reveals nothing that would ID a cast fluke. No claims for SHHP in the description text. However, dodgey specs and devious description is plainly an attempt at deception and shows us what to expect from a CMPRocna anchor.

Coming away from reading and comparing the two supporting texts for Rocna and Supreme, anybody will be impressed with Manson's uncompromising presentation - blowing Rocna right out of the water. If this is a sign of what is to come in 2012, the Rocna presentation definitely holds its own anchor to a grade where it.... 'coulda been a contenda'. (Remembering the pain and defeat in Brando's famous line.) And looks like it is destined to be marketed as a Beta anchor - a "shhp-type" lunch hook - that implication proves any CMPanchor cannot be compared with the competition. CraigSmith's worst nightmare.
Compromise will find you on a leeshore - where you might want a dependable anchor to kedge off with. Words don't make an anchor, materials do.
Lower standards don't make BEST anchors. Your life, your boat deserve the BEST.
END OF STORY.
[Noticed that Lewmar's 'original' CQR also has Lloyd's SHHP cert. (in the Defender catalog) And I thought you had to dive on a CQR to get it to set!]

Imco, there is only one way that Canada Metal Pacific can get out of their quandary. That is to have Rocna anchors made in China TO THE ORIGINAL PETERSMITH SPECIFICATIONS. Bis 80 shank welded to a hot forged fluke. You'd think they must be considering this possibility to save the anchor and their reputation.
If market share is then realized, consider moving manufacture OUT OF CHINA back to Canada or, even better, back to New Zealand to recover trust and good will back home. And maybe get recertified RINA SHHP! Be interesting to hear how PeterSmith/Rocna is currently perceived by his peers in New Zealand, wouldn't it?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________

*Page 171 of the ybw Scuttlebut was where I found the above blueline link. IT doesn't work! But the heading on this post will get you there via google.
MaineSail's summary and response is worth the visit. As is reading Rex's defense of his and his anchor's reputation - and giving us a timeline.
It is impossible to imagine this internet assisted drama ever being repeated. Better enjoy it now while you can.

[ebb]

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.
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

[ebb]

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.
__________________________________________________ _____________________
*http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/SiteP...DEO%20TEST.htm
**The Boss comes in "black" as well as "mirror" and galvanized.

[ebb]

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. 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.

[ebb]

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>>>)

[ebb]

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.

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.
And I do understand, apropos splashing litlgull, this is probably a detail that could be done later.
Detail Manson should have forseen & finessed..... with frustrated sailboat owners in mind. IMCO.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __
pre-historic marine cousin of OSTRICH discovered in NZ: BOSSOPTERUS ONEKAKA: Jurassic scavenger of the deep.

[ebb]

....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!
They're all Good, They're all Fine, Even if the hook don't Shine.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................................
*new gen: Ultra - Spade - Sarca - Kobra - Sarca Excel - Manson Supreme - Rocna. Old gen: Delta - CQR - Manson Ray - Lewmar Claw - Fisherman

[ebb]

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.