New Generation Anchor

[c_amos]

For what it is worth Ebb, I am typing this on my ipad from the anchorage off of Village Cay marina, RoadTown Tortola, in the BVI's. I have captained this 42' boat down from NC, and it has a 60# CQR that has failed to set several times. I wish I had brought the Manson off of Faith, because even at less then half the weight I would have more confidence in it.

In the last 3 months aboard (only 2 nights in marinas), I have been reminded why I sold my CQR and bought the Manson.

I have recommended the owner change anchors. The CQR was "better" before "better yet" came along.

[ebb]

.......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.
I'll be out of here!
__________________________________________________ _______________
* with the best anchor. And a decent roller to hold and launch the darn thing!

[ebb]

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.

[ebb]

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!

"Rocna Originals" , made in China, bear no resemblance (except shape) in materials & manufacture or third party certification
to genuine original Rocna anchors - which ceased New Zealand & Canadian production in 2007.


The writer copies the same pumped up hype used to market the other Rocna, the discredited one with the plain shank.
He makes the switch in the same breath....introducing the new and switching seamlessly to the inflated description of the well known original 'Original'.
Assume the writer knew at the time he wrote the piece that what SAILORS had been led to believe was original... was not.
Sailors had caught Rocna marketing bogus anchors. Hence his phrase: "A New Marketing Strategy" - otherwise known as damage control.
Altho it had yet to be understood IN PUBLIC FORUM that down grading by Rocna of specs (and expectations) had been deliberate - & secret.
Professionally known as: Bait & Switch. [an example by the writer quoted above]
The duplicity of the writer shows through where he heaps on more mashed potatoes
than you wanted to hear about.
By the time you swallow the buzz words: 'stopping power vastly superior'
you want to believe these NEW 9 and 13lb anchors have passed 'rigorous testing....
to the highest level available.'
None of that is real. What we are offered today are depreciated imposters called Rocna Originals....pseudo original.


The writer also tells us the rollbar is good for hooking with grapnels. If the shackle in the Manson inspired slide-shank doesn't respond.
Having the benefit of Practical Sailor's recent small anchor testing, it's cool that the rollbar is good for
something else besides positioning the fluke for setting, collecting garbage, and pulling out a chunk of the seabed
in 180 degree veers (according to PS.) WE better have some idea of what's on the seabed....
But hooked in the head - ad hype and deceptive puffery - better look closer at what we are led to believe, and don't
act too quick on what sounds honest and logical and sincere. It isn't.

Are we getting the skinny on a great new anchor? Or is it really what the reporter lets slip:
(quote) "A new Rocna Fisherman anchor, and a new marketing strategy." [same breath]
Right, what's more important to us than being anchored out on a new "rock solid" marketing strategy?

SPINNING THE MYTH
It appears that henceforth all models of anchors from CMP will be known as "Rocna Originals". CMP's damage control. I'm sure they
have copyrighted the semantic rubric, so that unwary buyers, in the years ahead, will feel assured the anchors have a "rock solid" reputation.

A china rocna may in some respects be an OK anchor, BUT this incessant unending subterfuge implies, doesn't it,
that the maker knows the anchor is dead and needs deceptive marketing strategy to sell it?
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ....................................
*It seems the sliding shank design Fisherman's Anchor is now morphed into "Rocna Original Anchors" (Hamilton 2013 catalog) -
loosing its specialist designation (here, anyway) and gaining seven weights from 13 to 88lbs.
Also instructive: the catalog slot that ROA now occupies is the same spot where Manson Supreme used to be in 2012.... Politics? Payola?
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ....................................
** also based on Sarca and Supreme originals.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ....................................
SORRY FOR THE RANT. This Rocna thing has been more upsetting than I could ever have imagined.......PEACE!

[ebb]

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 ?]

Every 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.

[ebb]

April issue of Practical Sailor hasn't arrived.
Imco a virus like me isn't going to bug PS enough to imagine them yanking an issue or pulling the subscription......really?
So it has to be coincidence that scolding PS has had this or any effect......don't I wish!
Being ignored is the standard response as it requires no imagination.
Never seen issues of Pracical Sailor at the Strickly Sail, but this time sure to look.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..............................................

Imco, most impressive anchor at the show was the Quickline 316L ULTRA.
Talked with the guys at their outdoor booth and bathed in the silver gleam of 1/2doz sizes on display. As I understand it, YouTube Randy B, who as venture capitalist, visited the Boyut Marine* stainless shop in Turkey on another hunt in 2008.... just happened to see the prototype anchor being put together by the shop owner...........(his name?)
There won't be a galv version because encapsulated lead can't go through the 860degree galvanizing process. ssUltra lead is completely encapsulated. [Be easy enough imco to design a slip in pocket for a chunk of lead in an already galvanized anchor. Tar-epoxy it in.] A 25lb goes for about $1200 - $48 lb.
Won't find this anchor on a bowroller in the marina, it'll disappear. One owner had his shot-peened to a satin look in an attempt to lessen the bling.
It is not rod but a stub plate that's inside the turn of the hollow shank at the fluke. Added strength inside the shank at the interface.
No welds show, none.....making the construct: marvelous and mysterious, natural and surgical, sophisticated and simple....... all at once.

Similarity to the take apart Spade** (not found at the show) mentioned by PS, is a stretch. Ultra is by far the most sophisticated anchor in the world. A legitimate departure from the Spade. And 316L Ultra might not match a galvanized MansonSupreme in mass & Grade 80 strength - BUT compared with all the others, it stands alone in Form-Follows-Function. Ready to instantly deep set! Was told that during development the anchor went through countless test stages - including a short lived galv version. Quickline is eager to have Ultra tested against all comers, and said reality comparison tests are long overdue. 316L is seen as less strong than Grade 80 steel. Let's see Ultra compared with Supreme!

MANSON had a gorgeous 25lb ss SUPREME ($998, Azure Marine - $40lb). A slide shank 15lb BOSS, in the flesh, didn't look so radical, nor even as tuff looking as the bling Supreme next to it. Girth difference could not be compared. NO rollbar Boss has a wide fluke that imco could pose a problem staying buried veered 90degrees. Has prominent angled wing tips to help flip it onto its fluke - but, imco, will impede burial, since the flaps are welded out on the tips of its wide fluke - angled against the direction of the pull - as if to put brakes on the signature rolled blade - preventing penetration.
(Boss bears more than a passing resemblance to Poiraud's (Spade) high arched shank and wide fluke Sword & Oceane anchors - now defunct.)
Supreme is robust, Boss a little anemic and fussy. In person, the patented little bolt whimsy, which keeps the shackle from sliding - or not - looked even more screwy - doesn't belong on a cruising anchor - costs more - perfect for power boats. Will Boss be around for long? Will veer tests be its downfall?
The tall aspect of the shank insures that the anchor is unstable on its side - on the seabed - and rolls to rest on its blade.
Sighting along the curved fluke, can see the curve is a constant radius cylinder section just like Supreme's - that 'compacts' mud as the fluke trys to bury..... if it happens as PS reports in their most recent trials. Boss does not have third party certification.
Doesn't get ebb's good SHT certification either (super high ingenious tech.)

MANTUS also had a tent, but the presenter was deeply involved. Mantus also didn't look as radical in life as online. Appears well made. Could swear the bolts were oversized and looked adequate for keeping the takeapart together. The hex heads or nuts protrude underneath the fluke like teats for baby mantuses. Needs testing against other new gens. Veer tests could be problematic. Can't say that seeing it invites liking it. And wonder if this mechanical wonder can be third party certified.
I'll make a prediction that this hooped anchor is the last of its kind. [http://www.knoxanchors.com for a Scot hooped anchor]
Compared with an aptly named ULTRA - if Ultra delivers on everything promised - this is where New Generation hoop anchors mutated into the present Ultra Now Generation, leaving most of the new generation behind. NOW they got it right!
(Have a lot of questions about anchor Certification....actual testing or merely materials....ethics of manufacturer prepared anchors, etc.)

This is a better way to obsolete the cumbersome rollbar....
ULTRA now comes with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) certification: SHP - equivalent to the highest RINA andLloyds SHHP. Actual 3rd party in water tugboat tested (STRAIGHT PULLS mud, sand, gravel***) This guarantees US Military buys this anchor. Good price driver! Sizes from 11lb to 792lbs! Each anchor has its own serial number, which you register with the company. THAT is as good as it gets: the manufacturer keeps a record of YOUR anchor. THIS creates a responsible standard for cruising anchors.
The semi turned down fluke - dubbed 'dipper style' - assures INSTANT SET. This feature plus the compact sleek touch-me design means imco this anchor willingly sets deeper when necessary - rather than getting rolled, plowed or yanked out. Claims for heavy grass and rubble. Instant set means it won't drag and load grass - preventing set - the rollbar's main problem, along with its weight at the back of the fluke.
Anchor looks like it flowed out of its element born as a single form.... rather than, like other new gens, so obviously fabricated of chunks and pieces. A clam-digger jeans look.... obviously good, when well done.

Reliable setting in the widest variety of seabed. Comes up easy - leaving the seabed behind. Definition of an ideal anchor for a small cruiser.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................
*Boyut must be the anchor products garhauer of the Mediterranian - developing new products for superyats and normal boats. Turkey is not part of the European Union and has a thriving economy.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................
**SPADE. No third party cert. [Why wouldn't an anchor maker accredit their hype and boost sales - like Manson and Quickline?]
Except for the fact that Spade and Ultra both stay buried, turn in set, in 90degree veering situations (in the PS comparison tests of 'paper-weight' anchors) - there is no other similarity between them. How to understand what PS is talking about.... Unless it's kind of a PeteSmith smudge on Ultra for being "it's-so-obvious" a fudged copy of the Spade........ There is no who-came-first in anchor design - it's about safety, how well it's made, how well it sets. Despite Spade's internet hype to the contrary, the anchor, in PS 180 veer tests, did PULL OUT OF SET.....But cleaned itself off immediately - as the Ultra does - and RESET.
Lead tip weight SPADE and ULTRA might be recognized apart from the others as WEDGE ANCHORS (vs blade). But there similarity ends.

[Alain Poiraud, inventor of the Spade, died in Feb 2011. RIP. Poiraud also designed more extreme blade anchors, that may have inspired the Boss. Spade, now owned by Yves Gelb, intends to put a dealership together for the US: SeaTechandFun? No numbers on the "high tensil" steel they describe.
http://tradeonlytoday.com/ Try 'Spade Anchor serious' in search bar - should bring up "An anchor for the 'serious' cruiser" ArchivesTues29Jan2013.]

Morganscloud, 56' charter boat out of NovaScotia, bigger vessel, bigger anchor, bigger engine, bigger budget. Sane, thoughtful opinions on many subjects with serious feedback from other big boat conservative owners/yoyagers. Cut above the usual forum fare.
Nothing on the Ultra anchor. Ultra only got ABS cert in Feb 2012. MorgansCloud - Spade's biggest champion - chose a twice oversized as their primary - same reasons we would: dependability in multiple seabeds, including thick grass/kelp and rubble, ease of set, ease of retrieval, ease of carry. [However, they oversized, something a midget 26footer can't do.]
Rocna Versus SPADE, Strengths and Weaknesses www.morganscloud.com/2011/11/23/rocna-versus-

***Remember the testing is paid for by Quickline. ($50,000 plus?) There is the ethical problem - whether anchors selected for testing are manufacturer 'prepared' - or should come 'off the shelf.'
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........................................

Celebrating 3 weeks of expungement by Practical Sailor. Oscar Wilde said, "A little sincerity is a dangerous thing and a great deal of it absolutely fatal."
♫ On a happy note: Awoke this morning thinking that if KAT EDMONSON sang into a voice activated 3D printer, the result might look like an Ultra. YouTube, 'Way down Low.'

[ebb]

Oakland Grill Omlet $9.95, PERFECT. (a perfect omlet is as hard to find as a perfect anchor).
Empty parking garage. Expected crowds for the boat show being Sunday, but there were far more people milling around the plaza farmer's market than in the cordoned off BoatShow. Weather was beautiful, no waiting at the ticket booth ($15) which led directly down to the floats and the HylasBenateauCatalina fabtasticplasticchrome AQUA-RV's packed like gigantic brislings in the sardina marina. Only people around were sales and greeters. There wasn't one smaller boat that looked inviting and comfortable .....went inside the center.

Far fewer vendors there than last year. The halls shrunk with movable walls, looked like a half empty stage set. Talked bottom paint with the e-paint and SeaHawk guys, handled candy colored yacht ropes at Yale and NewEngland, walked breifly through Garhauer and Svendsens - deja vu year last, one past before, and before that!..... and escaped into the sun ouside again. It's unsettling ambling by vendors trying to catch your eye. Innovative vendors were absent like a species gone extinct. Got a free sample of Kanberra teatreeoil boat deodorant that smelled like lime gummy.


[IN THE WAKE OF THE ELUSIVE MULTI-BOTTOM HOOK]

MANTUS. Go to their website and take a look if you haven't recently. Huge changes.
There are some six Utubes, taken together are impressive for the energy put into making them.
There is one UNDERWATER set & drag comparison you could watch.... with Supeme, Boss, Rocna, Spade, Fortress, Delta and even a CQR and an 'authentic' Bruce. First WAR video shows five anchors dragged at zero scope (shaft ON firm grassy sandy seafloor) draging just like we expect CQR, on their sides- NEVER diving in. Mantus also took about 10ft to finally dive in & set. SET is a relative term.

Outside at their tent, a long conversation with the guy about the anchor - not the doctor-inventor. They had a dry setup with 10#-15# Supreme, Rocna, Delta, and Mantus*, all laying on their side as they would on a plywood seafloor. He asked me to lift the tip of each fluke with a finger, to demonstrate where weight was concentrated. Equal weight anchors.....but pressure was doubled (painful) under the Mantus tip. Now THAT'S interesting.
Granted Mantus has a wider stance (therefor more tip weight) because of the rollbar stub-outs on the end of the fluke..... and those constructions on certain seabottoms will sink in easily, thereby lessening weight on the tip......but also, these rather strange appendages will keep the anchor from skidding - and, we have to accept it is designed that way to help trip the tip into the seabed. Mantus advertises INSTANT SET!
[*no Ultra, no Spade lead weighted tips] SKIDDING KEEPS ANCHORS FROM SETTING. (no kidding)

My demonstrator also pointed out a couple of glaring differences between MANTUS and SUPREME. Supreme fluke has the spear point "beveled on the wrong side." The chamfer should be on TOP of the blade... not underneath. Here's the logic:
Imagine a wood chisel. Which way would you hold a chisel to knock off a wood plug in a counterbore? Naturally, with the bevel down on the work, so the blade doesn't dig into the surface. Your hand guides the chisel slightly up as it slices off the bung and you haven't gouged it like you did a hundred times before.
OK, we want the anchor's sharpened bevel to catch 'the work'.....where would we have the bevel?
No kidding.....not undercut, because it LOOKS cool that way.... like Supreme does it (and Rotten Rocky), bevel the top of the fluke, leaving a bloody chisel edge that digs in as soon as the anchor moves.....where Mantus has it.
So simple and logical, it's cutting edge.

And also THIS comparison with Manson. It's a given (to Ebb, anyway) that Supreme is a handsome, hunky, steroidal hook.
Its roll bar has an equal and substantial role in its aesthetics.
Mantus makes theirs REMOVABLE. Use it when you need it. Proportionally, it's lighter in appearance and weight, more like bone than muscle.
The entomorphic look of the Mantus is emphasized with its wide spindly rollbar bolted on.
Seen from a sensible rather than aesthetic viewpoint, it becomes acceptable - moreso, if practicality is compared with its pumped up cousin.

Mantus is appearing on sail & cruise forums. Anecdotally performs as well as Supreme. Seems to hold in current and tidal changes.

At the Show they had a stainless copy on display. Even it looked... experimental. The anchor is a TAKE-APART.
It will always have that attribute as an impediment. Never fashionable like hi-heels Ultra - always flip-flop affordable.
With real reservations as to undisclosed alloys Mantus is made with..... it seems like a great stowable backup anchor for a small cruiser
......more reliable perhaps than an aluminum Fortress......maybe the Spade too.

Imco, one undeniable advantage of the Supreme design is its FLAT NON-BOWL fluke. Open, curved, not a bowl.
[The little Rocna in the boat show comparison display has the usual rear fluke upturns that make the anchor into a SCOOP, and imco can only hinder its ability to set deeper when a situation calls for it.....when you pray it will stay! Imco, scoop anchors will load and pull out.
Flow of sand or mud over the top of the fluke as it is pulled under is diverted by the up-turns at the back of the blade - if flow continues, the extra force pushes the back of the anchor downward - which redirects the pointy end upward. Not really where you want it to go.]

MANTUS is not bowl shaped - it is not a one diameter rolled fluke like Supreme - it is a single plate with three angled planes that runs flat & clean from tip to back - making it unlikely to collect seafloor. THIS IS THE MANTUS' BEST FEATURE...... The stub rollbar connectors probably won't stop bury as much as the angled rollbar gussets under the fluke on Supreme and Rocna anchors. Comparison testing is needed. Mantus' more open top platform than Supreme, suggests mud won't stick & pack but slip off the blade.
YET, sleek Supreme with its impediments and knobly Mantus are equally handicapped.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...

MANTUS is a major achievement BUT it has imco some major PROBLEMS:
PROTRUDING HEXHEADS on the bottom of the fluke are dangerous and have to be designed away......Or leave them there
and WELD THE TIP DOUBLER ONTO BOTTOM of the fluke....with bolt heads sheltered within or behind the reinforcement.
Also, inherently flawed are nuts and bolts at the shaft-to-fluke connect.....nuts on top screw into a deminished shaft diameter due to threading. Problem: fasteners shouldn't be in tension, constant concern about bolts loosening but also corrosion in cut threads. Technogical backward steps. MANTUS CANNOT BE PUT ON YOUR DECK BECAUSE OF PROTRUDING NUTS UNDER THE FLUKE. Absurd design flaw.

►SERIOUSLY, look into redesigning the take-apart fluke/shaft by inserting the shaft thru the bottom into a forged slot and fasten it together thru a collar with bolts in sheer across top of blade. Shaft seats into truncated slot (like wooden shaft of pick-mattock tool) with clevis pins holding it tight. No bolts to bend or wear or rust. Stronger the pull, tighter the join. Force is on the whole fluke, rather than bolts alone.◄

Horizontal rollbar stubs (can SNAG LINE & CHAIN and upset the anchor) .. why can't these wide-outs be on the same plane as the fluke? As extensions of the fluke angle. What's the problem? If they must stick out, the transition will be smoother, the anchor streamlined, looking less cranky - and more likely to SLIP THE RODE if it loops under the rollbar in a tidal change. Even less weight (less pipe) to the trailing edge (more tip weight!) Shank & fluke are mild steel...Ideal alloy: Grade 80 for the shank, Hi-Test 4140 for the blade. Must be made in USA. Rollbar should be galvanized inside, left open or rubber plugged.
THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT MANTUS IS MADE IN USA. Assume only US manufacture has control of materials and methods.
No disrespect - just want a winner I can have aboard!.................. IMCO....................
Like to see results of a destruction test (shank pull) on an unprepared full size (25#-35#) Mantus.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................
A perfect ALL-PURPOSE PROGRESSED ANCHOR doesn't exist. It's caught in the same bramble of compromise any MidgetOceanRacerCruiser like Ariel/Commander experiences. For the bluewater sailor.....
THERE IS NO CLOSE-ENOUGH for a primary anchor.
Trade-offs, cop-outs, sell-outs, half-measures in design, materials, methods do not apply to boat anchors.

[ebb]

Pretty much impressed with seafloor videos Mantus presents on their home page.
Won't quibble about anchor drag edits that might - or do - show the Mantus being towed along the bottom by the panga (or whatever) UNDER the surface of the seafloor.
Definitely IN the bottom rather than skipping along and stirring up clouds of sand or mud that all the other contenders seem to demonstrate.
Always possible to see videos on other manufacturer's sites that show their anchor out-performing the competition's.

Ever since the Rocna Debacle, admittedly Ebb has been over-sensitized to being taken for a chump by an anchor vendor.
Like being jilted by somebody trusted - the heart in the stomach disapates with time, but the memory is impressed in DNA forever.
The Mantus videos are obviously not third party, and are there to promote the featured Mantus.
But one thing is certain, anchor Mantus likes to set. Whether it likes to set DEEP is, imco, even more important and needs third party confirmation.
Whether we ever get that is a real problem. It's doubtful that WetsMarine will ever sponser comparison tests again !
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...

FROM MANTUS TESTIMONIALS
[Like the onsite video comparisons the testimonials are, of course, very Mantus positive.] QUOTE:
"Hi Greg:
Just received your 13lb. Being very curious how you got your design to set in hard
packed sand (where others fail), I had to try it right away in our yard. It did indeed set,
well done! It seems that you have perfected the chisel point, a little different than both our
Rocna and Manson.
I have to admit I'm a bit of an anchor buff, and have about 30 anchors in our boat house.,
and I love to photograph them under water to see how they perform. We have been
sailing on Georgian Bay since '65 (part of Lake Huron, one of the Great Lakes), where
the sea bed is often a combination of weed, rock, gravel, mud, and sometimes sand (and
old logs too left over from the days of logging the area).
You should think about a simple knock down design with perhaps one shank bolt and
welded tabs the shank foot slips into, it would be great for those who want to stow it in
pieces and need quicker deployment.
Again, great job, thanks! Brian"
.................................................. .................................................. ..................................

Well, at least one other Mantus fan calls for an UPGRADE of the SHAFT/FLUKE connect.
If I had the time I would buy a 25-35lb Mantus and proceed to change upgrade it into a trial anchor (as I see it!) as outlined in the preceding post.
1) Remove the welded shoe from the shaft.
2) Cut a precision slot for the shaft out of the fluke.
3) Weld together another shoe(collar) 1" to 1 1/2"H - and weld it to the fluke around the slot (filling former boltholes at the same time.) Shoe needs to follow exactly the outline of the shaft 'foot'. The thru-hole at the bottom of the fluke will be larger than the top of the collar.
4) Fit the 'restored' shaft base to the slot/shoe.
5) Drill holes sideways thru the shoe-collar and shaft end for clevis pins.
The idea is to create a truncated socket or shoe for the shaft to SEAT in.
Shaft inserts thru bottom of fluke reaching a point where the base stops even with the bottom of the fluke.

FLUKE. Where the rollbar is attached, it's current angled wide-outs will be bent back, straightened into the same plane as the fluke's twin shoulders.
Attachment tabs on the roll tube will be cut off and welded to the new angle. Tabs no longer will be connected on an arbitrary horizontal plane, but on the plane of the flukes. The fluke roll-bar ears will be cut off and welded back...on this experimental anchor.
.................................................. .................................................. .............................
A BETTER SHAFT BASE is for it to be factory hot forged into a thickened splay foot that dovetails and fits snugly on four sides into a truncated female shoe of the same wedge shape. With the shoe/housing bonded with the fluke, rather than the shaft as Mantus now has it.
A one-off trial shaft base can be built-up with weld rod and ground to the splayed shape in a small shop.
Don't want the expanded end to get stuck in the slot - which it might if too skinny. Snug, but easy to knock apart after use... without swearing.

Another change: orient the ROLLER-TUBE TABS so that they are inline with the pull of the anchor when it sets. Fore-n-aft.
Rotate them approximately 90° to parallel the center-line of the fluke. These decorations on the current model may act as tripping toes (I want to call them epaulettes) to get the rode to briefly lift the back of the anchor just enough to dive the fluke. Make 'em more streamlined.
Instead of drilling holes for nuts & bolts.....maybe weld heavy round bolt heads on short shanks into holes in the fluke. Have the rollbar tabs drop over the heads and set by pulling back into tear-drop style slots in the tabs. No tools (except maybe a rubber hammer) needed to knock the roller off! Nothing sticking out.
If that doesn't work, another alternative might be to have the roll-bar ends inserty into short next size up pipe stubs and pins.
What-do-you-know: A BOLTLESS, NUTLESS, KNOCK-APART MANTUS ! The 25-35 pounder in this DIY alteration may not end up as WIDE and perhaps change the heavy tip weight, instant set performance? What small boat anchors lack in overall weight, they can makeup in tip weight. More tip weight the better! This exercise is just toss for someone who is convinced the current Mantus ought to be upgraded.

Imco, streamlining the Mantus will result in a smoother DEEPER set. And FINESS the take-apart option.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .....
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .....

Once the INVENTOR has had his or her brainstorm, worked out the stuff not seen at first, gotten the plan, funding, materials together & created the product and a market (a significant BIG DEAL)
.......at that event, the ANCHOR falls into a crystaline sleep, stops developing or improving.

Take MANSON SUPREME: clearly this ground breaking anchor will be vastly improved by
(1)reversing the prominent point chamfer to bevel the top of the fluke... AND TO ASSURE INSTANT SET, bending the point down 3° or more.
(2) creating a conical fluke-blade, rather than cylindrical - flattening the arc at the back of the blade - to ease penetration and discourage compaction.
(3) lightening up on the roll bar. Less diameter, less back weight, more tip weight. (have to remember, it's just a helper)
(4) removing the under-blade gussets and tube ends that act as 'brakes' -- PUT THEM ON TOP - so the bottom of the fluke is clean and cuts freely into the seafloor. A lighter rollbar can also be removable - mounted in short cups welded to the top of the shoulders.
(5) one more thing might be added for upgrade: Round off the back of the fluke so that the anchor cannot stand upright as it does now.
(6) provide a shackle hole near the end of the shank at the back of the fluke for tandem anchoring or buoyed retrieval. A cruising anchor doesn't also need to be a sliding slot bass boat anchor. No-one but an idiot would trust their home to a sliding shackle.
Concept needs redesigning. Sadly, for Supreme, it's too late. - Supreme is frozen in time - and imco will be replicated without improvements... until it fades away.
Obviously, Manson know they have a problem with Supreme. Not just with the rollbar. Instead, they jive the awkward roll fluke BOSS as an improved upgrade. But say it's all about power boat anchor retrieval. Now they have TWO problematic close-enough-but-no-cigar new gens.
It's not about sales and fudging anchors to fit off-the-shelf anchor rollers...IT'S ABOUT HOW WELL AN ANCHOR HOLDS THE BOAT.

Trial up-grade models can fairly easy be knocked together and actually tested. But changing the current Supreme can only be done at the factory. Might make a model of an improved version in fiberglass, try weighted tips. Use it as a lunch hook, drag it on a beach, see how it performs.
Problem with an actual upgrade Supreme II or Mantus II is that it puts the excellence of originals in limbo. A good-enough-anchor requires a whole raft of flimflam that even a vendor has to believe. Skippers, equally, are locked into Bad Science and mediocre sales hype that doesn't hold water. Forums are full of unenlightened posts extolling the virtues of unenlightened anchors. Good enough anchors crank sailors into darwinian spirals. On a rocky lee shore during rising winds, when a skipper sets his maybe-it-will-maybe-it-won't CQR or DANFORTH, DELTA or SPADE, or that spiffy NEWGEN HOOKEROONIE... . . . . . . and it begins to drag....
he and his anchor become extinct.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______
A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds. Mark Twain

[ebb]

Sent MANTUS a version of page 11 here.
I know it's a chore to read.


Got a short chatty e'mail back from Greg Kutsen. Last line reads:

"The reason we did not make the shank slide through the fluke,
is if the bottom surface of the fluke is not smooth,
it negatively affects the likelihood and quality of a set in a hard bottom...."

If it's not smooth, that's my point, exactly!
Any bump is avoidable, but even a smooth elongated bulge on the bottom is better design than four totally offensive hexheads....gee whiz.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................

"You've got something better, I fancy.
You are the stormy petrel of crime, Watson. What is it?" ----Sherlock Holmes, The Naval Treaty.
(...a smarter anchor.)
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................

Any design anchor will set in certain bottoms better than others. We want an all-purpose anchor - muti-bottom anchor.

DIVING ANCHOR
We have learned that some popular old-style anchors are difficult if not impossible to set in many bottoms. Plows like the Delta and CQR are not trustworthy, they zipper seabeds and seldom dig in.
Scoop anchors like the Claw, Bruce and partially others like Rocna and Spade will often take a bite out of the bottom and hold it in the fluke. What this does is negate or disengage the blade by leaving the blade to pull a wad of seafloor, rather than allowing the metal to slice and slip deeper into the bottom. The more extreme 'authenic' Bruce or forged Manson Ray pulls out a ball of bottom when it drags.

An anchor under tension shouldn't walk along the sea floor or just under the surface in a partial set. It must keep diving into the sea floor... if that's what it takes to hold the boat in place.
The sailboat's primary anchor has to do two things equally well:
FIRST Merely pulling the anchor at 2to1 or 12to1 scope should always, every time, encourage the blade to slip into the sea-floor for its initial set.
SECOND When conditions worsen, it is crucial an anchor keep digging in without being defeated by its dandy but dumb design features.
(Handles of garden spades are housed in sockets molded into the front face. Back of the blade is more or less flat and uneventful -
BUT ALWAYS SMOOTH - the force of a foot cuts a clean hole. The soil in front breaks and crumbles and the gardener turns his garden-bed.

A BOAT ANCHOR'S PURPOSE IS NOT TO BE A SHOVEL
Setting anchor means cutting into the seabed by pulling. This means that the shank side of the fluke, the front, pulls disturbed or turned-up bottom. It's a self defeating hold. Obviously, further penetration is what is going to hold the boat. Not detached loosened material.
Anchors with impediments to diving in (whimsies like trim tabs & accent pieces, roll-tubes, prominent tube ends and attachments on the bottom of the fluke) can, imco, be dangerous. This will include the wide-out horizontal tabs on the shoulders of the MANTUS fluke.
Anchors may seem to hold, yet easily drag later, because initial set is never deep enough.
In fact, deep setting seems to be discouraged by all new generation anchor designs.

Anchors with a single scoop or spoon, meant to grab onto the bottom with a concave blade (like Rocna, Spade, and to some extent the super slick wedge Ultra).....
cancels the piercing action of the blade by separating and holding a wad (even pebbles, sand or mud) of bottom the anchor is supposed to penetrate.
{Of course, I'm trying to get a point across here. No tests have been done to support this argument. And it will probably have to be proven or deproven with a well designed virtual reality program....if not by cleaned up experimental anchors.}
An iron bowl holding on to the seafloor, like a 300lb mooring mushroom we'd want for our A/C, isn't portable enough. Nor is a piece of pie shaped mushroom hook. Because, simply, a piece of sea-bed in the fluke keeps it from deep set. It achieves its scoop and as if it is designed to do so, rolls out with its cargo. A muffled 25lb scoop is unlikely to hold the boat, unless it weighs 100lbs. OK, look at it this way: Suppose you have to haul up your favorite anchor and it has a glob of mud glued in its fluke (or a jammed rock)... and it has to be dropped immediately to reset....
Will you leave that glob on the anchor when you're going to try it again? Maybe you have the wrong anchor.

HOP SKIP JUMP. A scoop type anchor is not a deep setting anchor.
A fluke to take hold of the bottom has to act dynamically at all times. Can't be influenced by a disengaged plug of sea floor in its face while holding on. Plain flat flukes work clean and sharp when penetrating. When additional depth of set is absolutely required, we assume it'll slip in deeper.

{Sometimes the Supreme flat curved fluke seems to act like a scoop (according to my friends at P.S. in one of their tests)....because sticky bottom compacts on the curved-up sides of the fluke....disabling the anchor. Certain sea-floors aren't part of Supreme's all-purpose intelligent design.}
The bottom of an anchor's fluke imco must be as smooth and clean as possible from tip to tail.
Likewise the top of the fluke ought to be as free as possible of nooks & doodahs, blocks & barriers, to help penetration..

Highly polished, super slick, wedge-bottomed ULTRA has edge-fluke brakes (in the form of prominent downturned fins) on its shoulders - possibly inspired by Supreme/Rocna/Spade. These appendages are there, they say, to keep the wide tips of the blade from digging in before the pointy end. Which is conceptually understandable, but counter-intuitive. Form forgot function. The bottom of the Ultra anchor is not made for multi-seabed penetration. Quickline probably did all their pre-production testing in wet sand.
It's more plausible that Supreme/Rocna roll-bar designs required these little fins as gussets to support welding roll-tubes to the blade.
(Both Supreme and Rocna, imco, mistakenly, put these gussets on pipe ends allowed to protrude underneath the blade, where they still are to this day, rather than more logically terminating them on top of the fluke.
{ Want to guess why P.Smith publically hates Supreme so much?... because Manson copied his biggest mistake! Have to own your mistakes, but sharing them with your biggest competitor, horrors!! They act like hooks designed to keep the fluke from burying. Whatever for? An unencumbered fluke bottom surely is content to cut and dive in better. Real tests will prove this.}
ULTRA marketing, rather than good science, imco, tells us their fins actually help the anchor stay buried (in wet sand) during 90degree turns. 180degree pullouts not mentioned! .....Balderdash, there is NO support for this nonsense - visual or logical.

If a roll-tube or weighted tip orients the hook upright to initially sit on its fluke, then gussets or fins at the ends of the fluke are at least redundant.. Quickline, ultimately, could flatten the ULTRA scoop, which will add more stability to the upright attitude of the anchor in its ready position.... removing the fin barriers altogether.
If non-roll-tube Quickline Ultra has proved to its inventor that these impediments on the bottom of the fluke are indispensable, he can remove them to the top of the blade and line them up to stream with the pull (like the fins of a '59 Cadillac Eldorado), rather than angled, as they are, at opposing 40 degrees along the bottom edges of the fluke. It's obvious these dynamic duos discourage the anchor from setting deeply. What is that logic?? You can spin hype supporting these appendages - but they are as useless as epaulettes on a falcon, if not dangerous.
Ultra really has to get real. These angled fins may just discourage Ultra from adequately setting in all kinds of firm bottoms, mud-sand-grass, because the weighted point of the fluke is a wedge that must displace material to penetrate rather than cut into seabed like a blade point. Stainless Ultra wouldn't work at all if it wasn't so sleek and slippery.

Prominent tube and gusset ends below the fluke shoulders on Supreme & Rocna - kopykat angular fins on the Ultra - and the angled wide-outs on the Mantus - are hyped to provide them conceptual genius for being there. The appendages are ALL inept, awkward, ugly and plain wrong - if I say so myself. Let's include here the flawed single point fluke concepts: HUMP and SCOOP ! !
BUGEL, whose flat blade 'home boatshop' concept started it all, had it right.. sadly, never finessed to an upgrade - as our inspired pretenders have all attempted.

Inspriratus interruptus: What are these anchor makers collectively thinking? New-gens promise so much,
but not one really delivers a truly superior anchor.

Fast set, deep penetration, intuitive design. Trust my life and my boat to a half fast anchor?
Insurance, and certification companies like RINA and Lloyds could have a stake in this.

C'mon, somebody, THE TIME HAS COME... STEP UP, DO IT RIGHT.

[ebb]

A nice person has slipped me a contraband copy of P.S. February 2015.
Where-in a six page article called 'Anchoring in Squishy Bottoms' appears.

It reports on a year old comparison test, sponsored by Fortress, of about a dozen 40-45lb
popular anchors and a 45lb mooring mushroom as 'control' in Chesapeake Bay soft mud.
P.S. was invited to witness the testing first hand, but were busy with their own testing at the
time. They were subsequently given what they call 'well documented' results and videos of
the procedure by Fortress, and that is the basis of this report. It's still second hand.

The Squishy Bottom report by P.S. should be read first hand...to see if you can get a handle
on whether the methods used (static dragging) with a powerful winch is actually comparably
experienced by a yacht. And how do you read the data gained for each anchor for your and
my particular little ship.. by the method used? Big problem is how to read the chart as to
what the hook is up to... most times seems to be just flying through the pudding.
Look at the Chesapeake Bay Soft Mud Anchor Testing Thursday 8/7/2014 on
YouTube. There are 4 VIDEOS hosted by ChuckHawley "Independent Reviewer"
with straight forward you-are-there info and opinion on the difficulty of coming to
conclusions about all the other anchors but the Fortress FX...that wins the contest
anchors down! (not always, see 1st video.) The constant drag procedure bothers P.S..
All anchors preceded by 20' of 3/8" chain and 100' of wire cable rode for a 5to1 scope, but
the pulls added an extra 100' of cable to drag the anchors up to the 5to1 set norm...NUTS.
You get to see the graph, and Mr Hawley's explanations. Constant dragging 10 fpm doesn't
reflect any actual setting of an anchor. Graphic readout invents as many mysteries as facts.

Three prominent spot-light photos of an aggressive claw type anchor called SuperMax*
.. seeming to support the P.S. article is evidently never mentioned in the final Fortress test
documentation. P.S. also mentions other notable omissions from the Fortress line up.
Manson's aluminum Danforth-style 'Racer', Plastimos's 'Kobra", the Kaczirek 'Bugel', and
the 'XYZ' anchor. (in P.S. words: "an odd shaped and relatively obscure anchor that
excelled in Practical Sailor's 2006 soft-mud testing").

Notable and unfortunate, as it leaves the spirit of Fortress' intent wide open to criticism. And
since a comparison test made public is obviously targeted at buyers in the marketplace -
and certain competitors are excluded... for whatever excuse - you have what everyone sees is
B ad S cience.

Fortress Anchors (Don Hullerberg, inv) are aluminum. The ones tested (FX37) against the steel
45 pounders were less than half the weight at 21lbs. Were adjustable to two angles: one at the
more-or-less common new-gen angle of 32degrees, and a second 'mud setting' at 45degrees.
These danforths held twice as well in mud as the best of the steel at 32degrees....and 3times
as well at the 45degree setting. A smaller Fortress (FX16) assembled at 45degrees nearly
matched its big brother in holding.... "Up to 30 knots, but set anchor alarm."
Also showing well was a WetsMarine 35lb Danforth HT, at about half the FX37 Fortress max
holding...."If any wind is forecast, seek shelter." These tests were conducted in dead calm.

We must not forget these are danforth-style anchors tested in mud. That is this style anchor's
strong suit. Danforths in other bottoms at times have performed miserably. What FX has going
for it is its ajustability, its take apart for storing, its lightness, and its price. Price is arguable,
considering its 'limited' use. Questionable, as P.S. mentions, is the way a danforth is constructed,
how the flukes are hinged to the shank makes it a vulnerable design. NO VEERING TESTS DONE!

JUDGED AS UNRELIABLE.....Specifically in Chesapeake Bay mud - Fortress test procedure style.
Lewmar Claw (Bruce, Manson Ray) unreliable, low holding power, does not set.
(A point well taken is that this strange three BLUNT toed hook has many cruising fans. When it
finds bottom it lies on its side, and one of its 'toes' is positioned straight down. So it will catch on
rocky seabeds and penetrate certain bottoms enough to hold - and often better than the touted
rollbar anchors.. The claw is reliably consistent 'but not a lot of holding power'. )
Unreported but prominently displayed SuperMax (adjustable to 32 and 45) is also three toed,
but more like a paw or a giant hoe with a couple radius bites removed from the blade front.
Hard to imagine this anchor excelling in anything but a muddy 'substrate.' Interesting omission!

Spade (single weighted wedge point scoop fluke) does not set. unreliable in soft mud.
Spade also has an aluminum version of the anchor. NOT tested.

Lewmar Plow (CQR) does not set.

Lewmar Delta (plow) does not set.
{Rex's Anchor Right Excel (NOT tested, but this look-alike Delta with angles that make it act
differently than a plow IN SAND, certainly should have been included. However, in mud, imco
it would have faired as well as the Delta.}

Ultra (stainless single point scoop fluke) unreliable, sometimes sets but pulls out easy.
Here's an anchor that advertises its tip weight & downturned tip. It's not turned down enough!
This non-danforth might be reconceived to work equally well in mud as sand As in a diving-style...

Rocna (single point scoop with hoop) does not set.

Supreme (curved single point with hoop) and
Manson Boss (curved single point no hoop) 'good for lunch' - after lunch they are marginal.

Mantus (tested with its hoop - NOT tested without hoop) 'good for lunch' marginal.

P.S. calls Mantus a 'diving-type' anchor. Have not run into that epithet before, as it implies
other non-diving-type anchors. Suspect P.S. got that from Mantus hype rather than proof.
"On one occasion, the (45lb) Mantus hit a snag, but then pulled free. Although the load was
not high, the anchor's roll bar bent at one of the attachment points. This vulnerability was
pointed out in our review of Mantus (see Practical Sailor April 2013 online). No other anchor
suffered any damage during testing."
Rollbars are not useful when anchoring in mud. A professional would have removed it
(couldn't find the crescent wrench) for the test.
One can imagine that welded on rollbars on Supreme and Rocna, if caught on something, will
cause major problems to anchor, windlass, or rode... rather than bending at an attachment
point, as stated, on the Mantus - which 'pulled free'... we might assume still performed as an
anchor should (in another bottom, no doubt). Rollbars should be accessorized, not permanent.
Perhaps made breakaway, or fold back, after an amount of pressure, still attached to the fluke.
.................................................. .................................................. .........................................

Nothing in this flawed Fortress test changes my previous conclusions. Each current new-gen
style has some seafloor-dynamic changes to make, imco. They are a sad disappointment here,
made to seem completely useless. Ariels & Commanders headed for uncertain cruising grounds
might pack a smaller disassembled FX16 as a kedge. And a 35lb take-apart Mantus for a storm
anchor. More uncertain is the efficacy of permanent rollbar anchors. Primarily it's their lack of
tip weight. Littlegull now has a bowsprit and no place to mount a roller for a hooped hook.
Lean toward diving-type Mantus because its hoop is an accessory. However, the anchor itself,
rather than being versatile, appears too funky, maybe kinky is the word ...to rely on as a best
primary. In a non moral sense: the devil is in the details. New anchors for awhile seem to
perform well. Owners learn to use them. Venders learn to hype them, buy them third party
certification. Sailors learn to depend on them .... but disappointment sets in when they don't
set so well, or inconveniently pull out....and the sloop drags to hell.
The devil is in the details of the anchor's designer: what's there, what's missing, what's wrong.

Quite obviously it never has been my intention to hyjack this thread. I have felt, in fact, I
seem to be dragged along by some imperitive, or frustration with so-called new perfection
anchors. Most skippers seem most impressed with how cheap or expensive an anchor is.
Most skippers go with anchors their friends use. Most consumate skippers have learned to
set their favorite anchor with care and practice, because it's not really a well designed
natural. Some skippers don't want to change because their cruising grounds don't change.

.................................................. .................................................. .....................................
*SUPERMAX (Andrew Peabody, inv) -- http://www.creativemarine.com/
In an ABS Gulfport tug boat soft-mud certification (comparison test) SuperMax beat Spade,
XYZ, Digger, Fortress (at 6to1 did not set and had no measurable tension on rode while
dragging), WM danforth, Bullwagga, aluminum Delta, CQR...Supermax tested with an all
nylon rode,set at 570lbs and began dragging at 700lbs, best of the lot. Other past tests
mentioned on site seem to show SuperMax consistently out-performing Fortress in soft mud.

[ebb]

Fortress spent an amazing amount of money to make this trial happen. Hiring the 81ft R/V
Rachel Carson, four days of lodging, lunches and lattes, don't think the platoon of guys
were volunteers. And Chuck Hawley as an "Independent Reviewer" (formally Vice
President of Information and a board member of WetsMarine) might also have been hired
for his clout. The deck was stacked in FX anchors' favor. There are grounds to presume
that the omission of certain competitors was deliberate - as well as for certain competitors
being included, because Fortress knew they would 'take a fall'... in the mud! Money put
up for this show guarantees that Fortress absolutely comes out on top. Guess, $100,000?
A lot! It's hardware theater for the 35ft to 45ft yacht crowd.

Don't have a special anchor to champion. Own a Fortress, but haven't seen it for decades.
My original hotties, as they appeared, were Supreme, Ultra, Mantus. But sobering up soon
revealed that each has flaws. Some seem to defeat exactly what an anchor is supposed
to do. Some need to evolve into a better tool from the promise of their unique design.
Every anchor (2, 3, more?) on a 26' cruiser must be dependable in multiple beds. A small
sailboat can't fart around with an engine to precision a cranky anchor.

MECHANISTIC AND ARBITRARY FORTRESS TEST REVEALS TEST IS USELESS
If further study of the Fortress test methodology certifies their conclusions, then a poor
showing of cruising anchors in our lighter weights, makes for us almost no choice at all.
Mechanically pulling anchors at 10ft per minute for 100ft before a scope is reached to make
a standard pre-set comparison, imco, pretty much ignores what an anchor may do naturally.
Pulled incessantly thru the mud may create forces and loads that could not exist otherwise.
However, anchoring in a wind as mighty as the winch-drum on the RachelCarson with our
galvanized marvels all dragging on high, we can preview on the chart a 10 minute tale of
our favorite hook letting our favorite boat slip away to virtual doom.
Instead of a 45lb mushroom as control, Fortress should have had a couple 35ft to 45ft
yachts setting anchors. The same anchors at the same time..... THEN, we'd bear witness!

I'll always think the basic design of the Mantus a good one. Angled flat flukes are definitely
the key. Very disappointing that Mantus showed so poorly. There is a notation on the
comparison chart in the P.S. report that says: "Mantus suggests 85lb anchor for a 45'/50'
cruiser and 105lb as a storm anchor." {That suggests if we normally carry 25lb/35lb anchors,
Mantus wants 50lb/70lb weights for primary....IF CORRECT, THIS IS RATHER BIZZARE.}

So they want at least twice the anchor weight of the others to do an equal job...in mud. But
that remains to be verified for a mud seabed. Mantus' suggestion would put it well out of
contention with lighter and more impressive aluminum FX on weight alone. However it has
earned a reputation for versatility and strength. That Magical "instant set". This promising
anchor is destined to remain as a backup. It has prominent hexhead bolts under the fluke
that will gouge the deck.

ATTRIBUTES
Besides being useful for as many seafloors as possible, and having a smooth unobstructed
form, the contenders, when dropped overboard, must land on the fluke and ready to set.
It's OK for an anchor to lay on its side, if the first pull sets it. Anchors must instantly set,
within a few feet, and stay ready until called, by further tension on the rode, to go deeper.
Anchors should get set without use of an engine.

Also, would not have expected Spade anchor to be so completely 'unreliable' in soft mud.
I'm sure Alain Poiraud intended his anchor to dig into any bottom it encountered. However,
it evidently didn't at 10 fpm. Spade with its sharp point, scoop fluke, weighted wedge tip
(half of the anchor's weight is on its tip), and pronounced shoulder fins under the fluke...
has inspired the designers of each of my hotties and a number of others. Sometimes
Poiraud's whimsies are just added on, I'm sure, to a new design, because it looks important...

Tried to find the origin of the 32degree shank to fluke angle. Imco the closer the fluke is to
the shank, the easier the fluke can be pulled out or plow. A more open angle will 'point' a
well designed fluke more downward and away from the horizontal pull of the shank. My 30lb
USNavy pattern Danforth, built like a battleship, has a 33degree angle. Poiraud calls it the
'chisel' angle. Once having been a woodworker, Krenov's bevel was between 20 & 30degrees,
But heavy duty mortise chisels are 35degrees. The Spade shank angle may be OK but it
has the messiest fluke bevel imaginable...as far as anchor sediment-dynamics is concerned.
Dig his enthusiasm for unique invention, but his science is too French for me. Poiraud
influence certainly is everywhere evident on Supreme, Rocna, Ultra, and other pretenders.

Imco the fisherman slot on Supreme and Boss yacht anchors is irrelevent and misleading.
Gets instant recognition. However, Excel, especially f.s. Sarca have new ideas that are
not French impaired. Should be brought into focus. If any anchor should NOT have been
omitted, it is Sarca. Doubtful that these Fortress test results are repeatable by another
comparison series. I'm not surprised, but still disappointed & shocked at some showings...
.................................................. .................................................. ...............................
.................................................. .................................................. ...............................
Fluke area comparisons weren't done.. FX blades are bigger, longer, thinner & sharper.
Had a minor boot-in-the-butt that might be interesting to follow through on....not an idea
but something that popped up without thinking. If we already have a new-gen anchor,
and we're curious to see if changing its surface area for soft mud could make it work,
why not take some sheet aluminum or steel sheet, or even some bendable glass panel, and
shape it larger and/or longer, cut a slot somewhere in the middle of it -- just enough to
sit snug around the base of the shank at the fluke -- and slip it over the shackle end,
down the shank, to the fluke. Is it possible to increase area this way, or extend or even
split the pointy end if that's the secret. Try it out.... Will an accesory version of an added
over the top plate like this be useful as an aide.... for a modern shackle & chain duddy?

What are the pudding dynamics of single fluke new-gens? Their poor showing may be
due to fancy curved shanks trying to fly like wings & boomerangs. Hawley mentioned it....
flying anchors through sticky mud probably sculpted anchor flukes into undefined blobs.

WHILE WE'RE WAITING:
Here's another line of inquiry: In 1822 a Brit named Piper patented an anchor he called
WISHBONE. Articulated Danforth's have a single shank that splits the fluke(s) at the
crossbar/stock into two equal plates. Wishbone splits the SHANK into two pieces that arch
around from the stock at the sides of a single isosceles fluke up to the shackle.
Stock acts as the fluke hinge for both anchors ...Wishbone has no central shank to pull
up into a Windline! Perfect mud/sand anchor. But no easy way to get it back onboard!

HANS-STEALTH. http://www.hansanchor.com/ Very interesting anchor.
..... "Airplanes and anchors have a lot in common! Both have to perform with a
minimum of resistance." Have not seen Stealth first hand. Made with two roughly tri-
angular plates, one acting as the bottom diving fluke, with its twin clamshell attached
across but not attached over the top of the shank, allowing loose seafloor material to enter
.. and in theory, hug the device into the substrate, rather than deep diviing The Stealth is
'symmetrical' in the sense that a Danforth is: it interacts with the bottom on either of its
sides. The shank is hinged. The fluke blades act in a bucket form. Shank to fluke angle is
25degrees. The bend in the fluke also acts to right the device on either side it lands,
ready to be pulled into set. When on site, hit NEXT (upper left ) for a
tour of the mind behind Hans Claesson's anchor ! {don't get me started...but his fluke is
also beveled on the 'wrong' side like a lot of the guys. And while some dimensions are
given, there is no meaningful diagram with transparent specs to be found on the site.)

...........................MINIMUM RESISTANCE.... EXACTLY ! ! ................................

Fortress arbitrary testing strategy of arrogantly dragging anchors through mud, probably
also would have defanged this Stealth anchor by transforming it into a lump.

The decades old 30/32 degree shank-to-fluke ANGLE 'requirement' for all anchors, might be
tested/proved...with the assumption that the angle might be opened up more...say, five
degrees ...to see if some new single fluke anchors can be encouraged to dive in more willingly
when pulled ...rather than round out, pull up, or drag continuously on or under the seafloor.

With apology to LewisCarroll:
...And then they rested on a rock Conveniently low: And all the little Anchors stood And
waited in a row. The time has come, the Walrus said, To talk of many things: Of shoes--
and ships--and sealing wax--Of cabbages--and kings--And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings..... And why New-Gen anchors are really not!

[ebb]

Where does this shank to fluke angle come from?
Printed out a few Peter Bruce, Alain Poiraud, and Rex William Francis US Patents.... to study!!
Richard Danforth's original US Patent 2,282,566, May 1942 called TWIN FLUKE ANCHOR, has
a shank to fluke angle of 25degrees. His flukes are a split equal angle triangle. A revised US
Patent 2,576,390, Nov 1951 shows the more familiar twin fluke with a 33degree s/f.*
Fortress long flukes have adjustable 32 or 45degree s/f angle.
Interesting how stiff the descriptive language is in these legal documents.
Difficult to follow, as the words are attempting to bring forth a unique idea for a product in a
pedantic dead way.
Shank to Fluke angle: Most if not all anchor designers use the Institute of Naval Architects'
directives on anchor design. The degrees of shank/fluke separation originate from there.
The angle of most anchors is found by us users by taking a straight-edge and laying a line
from the shackle hole to the back of the fluke. The bottom line of the fluke body that
intercepts the line from the shackle to the fluke... is the shank to fluke angle....s/f.
Designers` arch or dog-leg shanks, widened shoulders on flukes and add fins, add weight and
doublers to fluke tips, in an attempt to destabllize the anchor when it meets the sea-floor....
so that any other position but the one that directs the rode to pull the shank, and set its
precisely angled fluke into the substrate. Substrates come in all textures and oozes.

Here, from the opening Description portion of Peter Bruce's argument for an (unsuccessful)
soft- mud anchor (US 5511506A) 1992 -- titled BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION...
...."Satisfactory operation of an anchor in a particular mooring bed has necessitated the anchor
to have a particular geometry including a fluke angle compatible with the mooring bed soil.

"The fluke angle is the angle formed between the fluke and a line in the fore-and-aft plane
of symmetry of the anchor extending between the rear of the fluke and an anchor line
attachment point in the forward end of the shank. At present, it is known, (see, for example,
The Quarterly Transactions of the Institute of Naval Architects, Vol.92. No.4 Oct., 1950 pps.
341-343) that for operation in a sand bed a low fluke angle in the range 23degrees/32degrees
provides peak holding power in the deepest burying anchors. Fluke angles of 25degrees to
32degrees for medium dense to loose sands generally provide satisfactory performance.

"For a relatively soft mud bed, the fluke angle for peak performance is larger and is in the
region of 50degrees to 55degrees. In sand with fluke angles over 32degrees, the moment
about the anchor line attachment point of the resultant of soil normal pressure and friction
forces on an anchor fluke is insufficient to counterbalance the sum of the moments about
the same point of soil edge resistance force on the fluke and soil resistance force on the shank
during initial penetration. The anchor is, in consequence, longitudinally unstable during pulling,
and rotates about the attachment point into a nose-down attitude wherein it fails to bury below
the surface of the mooring bed or even breaks out of the soil altogether. A fluke angle of
32degrees or less has rthus been adopted for the deepest burying anchors to permit effective
use in both hard and soft soils. The resulting disadvantage in soft soils is usually mitigated
by maximally increasing fluke area at the cost of reduced structural strength for hooking on
rocks. However, even with increased fluke area, such anchors typically provide a soft mud
performance less than 15% of their sand performance. This illustrates the problem involved
in providing an anchor with a single compromise fluke angle capable of producing high holding
capacity in both hard sand and soft mud.".....

What existing anchors ("at present" as Bruce says in his 1992 application) were used to set
the shank/fluke standards for the longitudinally stable gentlemen of the INA in 1950?
Current then were fisherman, stockless cast fluke, northill, CQR, Danforth. Of these. imco,
only the Danforth has a measurable fluke/shank angle. The patent was filed in Jan 1948.
Assume the INA had access to the idea. But why does Bruce go there (1950), that far back?

There is, of course, much more to this patent, than that quote. Interesting to what lengths an
inventor goes to come up with a rather unappealing cumbersome tool, to solve the soft mud
anchoring problem! He has added a large area extension to the rear of an approximately 28
degree shank/fluke anchor, in the form of a broad saddle for mud to sit on. Meant for mud
to slip across its surface (rather than having it stick and lump up) to create weight. Don't
see what supports all that extra plate attached in back of the regular fluke.....heavy reading!!


HANS--STEALTH may have separately solved the Bruce mud-saddle anomoly by using an extra
plate for something different... place it on top of the shank, clam-shelling over the fluke, to
create a venturi-effect ... squeezing the soil/mud on top of the fluke as it is pulled under the
seabed... attempting to keep it from crumbling and liquefying, imco, which the act of dragging
and penetration might produce. Can't speak to Han's intent, that's a guess.....Otherwise,
especially in soft mud, you have another contender with a shape-shifting mouthful of muck.

Note that Bruce says in the quote above, that over 32degrees s/f, ie, if the angle is opened
up - as I believe is the way to go when designing for all-purpose - he says the 'anchor will
rotate about its attachment point in a nose down position'. Hard to visualize, and what
anchor(s) is it that he refers to, that will rotate? Is he saying that the rode will pull on the
shank and the fluke will slip continuously with the shank falling flat, falling over, or falling
'nose-down' without catching any firm bottom....? Soft mud too soft to trip&set anchor!
(Evidently, one modern 32/45 danforth with very long, very straight blades, two of them,
will rocket unerringly thru the soup to impale anything of substance it finds in the sediment.)
You'll remember in Hawley's reading of the Fortress test pull charts, there were a lot of
unexplainable ups and downs, oscillations on the graph. An anchor may be acting as if it was
twisting or flagging rhythmically in thickened liquid mud. Is Mr. Bruce saying that here?

Fortress comparison test steady winch pull speed of 10ft per minute = 6 seconds per foot.
This does not seem excessive. Two inches per second is still mindlessly mechanical, with zero
finesse. Bruce's statement above: that an anchor with a s/f angle of more than 32degrees,
will not achieve initial set in soft sand (soft soil), because the fluke is unable to dive into the
substrate, ie, will not set because there is not enough 'edge' to soft soil at a wider s/f angle....
Don't believe this without proof!!
Assume sand here is a loose material that includes sand/muds and others less substantial.
Fortresses set and held better in Chesapeake soft muds with wider (45degree) s/f angles!

See also: The San Francisco Mud Bottom Anchor Tests.pdf (1990) AND Safety At Sea Studies -
1995 Anchor Study -- The Sailing Foundation Anchor Tests Puget Sound 1995 by Doug Fryer.
EDIT (assume now defunct independent underwriter, could not get FX37 to hold in soft mud
in a MAX sponsered Pensacola Florida anchor test, where BigMax came out on top, in 1991.)
-- Fortress can be harder to set -- when set and holding, rate best at non-veering holds.
Shank & flukes can get damaged when veered.

.................................................. .................................................. .........................................
* Bruce Marine Anchor (un-named 1991) -- http://www.google.nr/patents/US5511506
Poiraud (Sword/Oceane 2003)-- http://www.google.com/patents/US7171917
Francis (probably early Sarca 1997) http://www.google.td/patents/US5970902
Danforth (TwinFlukeAnchor 1941) US2282566
Danforth (twin fluke modifications 1948) US2576390

The 1992 Bruce anchor in this post is NOT the famous 1970s Bruce claw. (Which, imco, is the
true precursor to all the single fluke new generation hooks, beginning with 1980s Bugel.)

See Cruisersforum thread:
Anchors - Bigger is Better ? -- Page 100 of 119, there is a post with a revealing photo of a
venerable Bruce compared with a zincy LewmarClaw. An approximation of s/f angles from both
in the photo. Shank to fluke angle of the Bruce is 30degrees - s/f of the Lewmar is 38.5degrees.
Significant difference.
We see in the patent above here how precisely PeterBruce sees the consequence of the s/f
angle relationship. The Cruisersforum owner of both anchors says, "The genuine Bruce almost
always out performs the LewmarClaw in my testing."

Manson's home FAQ tells us their Ray (31degree s/f) is fabricated with steel plate, Lewmar
Claw is cast in China, and the genuine Bruce is "S G Iron."
Spheroidal Graphite Iron, is a ductile cast alloy, actually invented by one Keith Millis in 1943!
The carbon (graphite) in SG iron is in a nodular form giving this cast iron, not only malleability,
but High Tensile Strength and good corrosion resistance.

One piece single fluke hooks (all have been created by single male hominids - exception, is the
more recent Mantus) have only been popular for 25years. What can be said: 25years is but a
drop in the proverbial bucket of the lives and times of sailing ships -- and anchor designers...!

[ebb]

2016-17 google: Anchor Test Compilation. Video #56 of an ongoing anchoring series...
SV PANOPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=159f-OjWoq0 (that's what it says)


Now, here's a guy who goes ALL OUT to find a trustworthy anchor to cruise
with!! How he does this is alone worth watching (40min).
Agree 100% with his findings.
A resourceful sailor, Steve Goodwin, gets his 8 main suspects together, invents an
underwater camera system to actually record setting, RESET, and dragging capability
of Fortress, Bruce, Sarca, Spade, Supreme, Sarca Excel, Mantus in a couple bottoms.
Compact study, with interesting conclusions. Imco, this is the best (perhaps ONLY)
video documentary to date that independently compares our fancy yacht hooks.
At first they all seem to do remarkably well....

{These tests are not sponsored by any company, nor one vendor marketing anchors.
Vendors have contributed anchors to Goodwin. Anchors tested are not "off the shelf."}


GOODWIN'S (TYPICAL) SAND/MUD/GRASS COMBO SEABEDS
Two pretenders stand out. When clean, set immediately.
But on RESET, where set anchors are pulled around by the boat 180degress,
as if by current or tide change, take a load of sea bottom on the top of their
fluke, drag without resetting, even tho they may not pull out of the seabed.
They can PLOW and NOT RESET.

From a farmer's view, basically all these anchors are plow-like. In that regard some
are better plowers than others. The last thing an anchor should do is plow. My focus
now is entirely on diving or full set hooks.

Could say a dependable diving anchor would not have an anatomical footbed to cradle
the very bottom it penetrates. Mantus works because it's thin flat plate slices into
penetration -- rather than hold, cup, spoon, scoop or bowl. We see two borg rollbar
anchors consistently detach sea floor in their 'footbed' -- which adversely moulds fluke
volume into perfect plowers..

Goodwin's test of Supreme has confirmed my critique of the anchor. Neither custom
roller nor anchor will be riding LittleGull's bow. Manson Supreme, is not an anchor for
cruising -- even a lunchhook... too many unresolved design flaws. see post 203.


Altho I was at first taken with Supreme's tough looks, it proves to have more problems
than a "supreme" should. Liked the FLAT CURVE, non bowl, fluke. Thought it would slip
bottom and dig deep. But the reset capability of an anchor to turn within its original set,
or to reset immediately if pulled out by current or tide change is an equal consequence
of instant set. There are glaring flaws with both now popular rollbar anchors.

If upgraded as critiqued, Supreme might become a primary...A small cruiser with few
anchors has no place for one that can't RESET... which both rollbar anchors seem BAD
at in multiple tries. Failures show up in Goodwin video #56. (and #63 -- see below.)


Supreme cannot be updated with grinder and welder in a home shop. Changes to save
Supreme for prosperity are found in posts on this page. Manson is blind to necessary
upgrades. It's a curvey macho looking anchor... with flaws that soon are commonly
recognized, I think, particularly since the rollbar has had its day. Its cramped pipe
sectioned fluke, heavy rollbar robbing tip weight, difficult penetration because fluke's
chisel chamfer is upside down, and rear angled gussets act like brakes on the fluke
bottom. Blunt shaft at fluke collects detritus. Both* anchors are seen in competitor
videos getting towed (often too purposefully) furrowing along sandy surfaces above &
below the water without diving in. Goodwin's videos confirm dragging bad behavior
AT THE ANCHORING SITE.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

*Goodwin left the Focna rollbar out of his Video #56 compilation. (He also left out two
big-borg newer anchors marketed as Vulcan and Boss, and new kids not promoted by
large companies that might be included for comparison, like Hans Stealth).
Everything CROCKNA disgusts me, no spew is off limits to sell this product to chumps.
Any reader wading here knows that while researching anchors awhile ago, I ran smack
into the sad Poxna fraud debacle, responsibly reported & supported in massive forums
by the Brit Magazine: Yachting Monthly.... developed chromosomal disambiguations
which make me almost gag every time I see the anchor or its perpetrator's unprincipled
promotions. ...Almost, because I won't give 'em even that.

Steve's, * Rocna Anchor Setting Video #63 -- conclusively proves Pocna, just like
the Supreme, fails miserably on short scope, and unreliably on longer scope actual
anchoring test series. It's not the rollbar that faults (altho obviously subtracts from tip
weight). But fluke does not let go of material in the first set, even 180 pulls.

Wocna and Supreme never were intelligently tested before being released to the public.
It may be, of course, that larger versions of each perform well on larger vessels. Stand
alone Goodwin unbiased comparisons of mostly one size up from our smaller anchors
are fortunately what we have now. It's probably wrong to base safety judgment on one
test series. We have had nothing for two decades but relatively few biased, rigged,
flawed industry sponsored comparisons. We better pay attention.

CLEAR & UNANSWERED BY THE MANUFACTURERS
Plainly said: When these anchors set, they will not let go of material on the top of their
flukes, thereby cancelling their ability to work as an anchor when moved.

AGAIN, both anchors, in sand-mud-grassy bottom, when pulled around 180degrees stay
buried but do not slip the seabed of their initial set, and both will pull out with a blob of
bottom, or pull a furrow like CQR or Delta plow anchors, unable to set. Expect bottom
to stick in Crocna's bowl shape fluke -- but not the FLAT curved cradle of Supreme
- now 'proven' to collect bottom on the front twothirds of the blade. Blob in effect
converts hooks into Delta-like plow performance. This is completely unacceptable.
This means they are likely to fail .....at the worst time ........WORST OF ALL:

ROLLBAR MANSON SUPREME AND ROCNA ANCHORS CANNOT BE TRUSTED


Anchors----Resetting Failures With Rocna and Some Thoughts on Vulcan
https://www.morganscloud.com/ Found full essay on the net (perhaps not complete).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

UNBELIEVABLE ANCHOR
"MANSON has 'designed an anchor' specifically for West Marine". Happened to see it at
WM store in Alameda. It cannot be explained.

First off, IT's too confused to photograph. Photo in catalog, makes it look like an accident.
Up close it looks wrong. Looks so inept you don't want to touch it. Can't be a Manson.
If anchors sell themselves because they look good like an anchor should, which, for all
testing and brouhaha, looks is really what sells a hook, this one is ONE UGLY S O B.

They won't be able to give them away. The Thing at the messy end looks retarded,
maybe supposed to be buried in concrete for an abutment. Don't need no stinkun
'butments roun'heah. Handle has a goofy curve, looks awkward and unsure, with a
blunt corner where it meets the whotchermacallit hook part......Bad Bad Bad.

More specific: the fluke is based on a three pointed star shape. One leg is the hook,
the other two are bent right angles that brake the anchor from setting.
Called the West Marine Scoop. It's weirdly anything but a scoop. Not designed to
penetrate any known seabed -- or display on your bowroller at the marina.


VULCAN [this anchor is poured, not forged]
Smith's new ALL-CAST (shank separate from fluke) made-in-China fantasy anchor:
Vulcan: its scoop is a Poiraud Spade wedge bottom doodle on a tightly curved,
impressively cast, I-bar Poiraud Spade curve shank -- intuitively ballsless for anchoring.
Deliberately contrary to smooth seabed penetrating flukes & shanks - like Poiraud Spade.
It has a precious rim around the back of the fluke, giving it the look of a bicycle seat.

It's not a real anchor.

Smith's web site, immediate impression: Garbage Speak, Vulcan Hype comes off puffed
with self-adoration-- text so blatant it's offensive.

Where are we informed that the whole anchor is a casting? What alloy is it: chocolate?
100% dishonest.
This is LYING BY OMMISSION.
That is nothing new, it's the same old same weird attitude that stinks this brand name.
WHY buy the hype? Why trust it?
VULCAST. VULCAN'T. vul CON whatever. Even if it poiraud-like works in loose sand.

Smith knows no veteran cruiser will trust cast metal over fabricated plate.** So, unable
to talk real and transparent - rollbars now almost extinct - he comes up with a doorstop.

His own words tell us the anchor is artificial.
Vulcan: Genuine Artifice..
IMCO
( the shank is oddly welded to fluke)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

**There's nothing wrong, can we say, with one piece shank & fluke cast steel anchors.
The all cast Genuine Bruce has been around since 1976. Ever see, ever hear of a
crystaline break in this anchor cast in Spheroidal Graphite Iron?
Do I care if the stink bad but cute Vulcan is malleable or not?

[ebb]

Can't drive car without brakes. Can't sail boat around without anchors.
You'll probably never have a better opportunity to see what your anchor,
or one you heard about, does under water when you're not looking.

Turns out Steve Goodwin really is one hellofa skipper. SV PANOPE, from which
assume he creates his "1500 videos", is a 15,000 lb "If I visualize my boat without a
mast, I see a trawler". His 45' other half. The gaff sloop has a handcrafted set of
cruising sails by Carol Hasse & Co.

There are many videos by Steve on anchors and anchoring. Just ran into 'Anchor
Setting Test Commentary Video #19 of an ongoing anchoring series' that takes place
on Port Townsend Bay up in Washington. (Ebb landed too quick, doesn't explore
enough, gets factoids wrong, excuse me please.) This video introduces us to all the
old, no longer fashionable, traditional hooks, misfits, hassles, plain wrongs -- with
Supreme and Spade for good measure. And good reason, as you will discover.

Goodwin's videos seem somewhat progressive. #56 and 63 are where I started and
where my focus on Supreme finally ends. Early video, forget #, compares Supreme
with Spade, with inconclusive visual comparison that Goodwin has to tell us in video
who came out first. We have to spend time, and so far get lucky in the draw for
anchors & comparisons. Haven't found a complete list of video titles or index, yet


Spent hours thinking modifications to my Supreme 25. Goodwin also, BUT he dives
in, actually does it. Must watch PANOPE video #67 -- where he cuts off the what
-everybody-really-hates rockslot, making the tip a little heavier! Grinds off winglets
on the speartip so the fluke tip touches ground.. Welds on a sharp little keel, grinds it
off. Tries a slight turned up edge on the fluke (beginning to wonder here, myself.)
Welds large wing tips on top of the fluke at the roll bar, he thinks they'll help force
the tip down... with each modification he heads back to the boat with great
expectation, and throws the suffering anchor back in ...Initial set always perfect,
resets are all "failures".
Grinds the "ears" back off.

Goodness Gracious, what's the matter with this !@#$%^&! anchor? Nothing, not even
mutilation gets it to wake up! (I've been alone out here waking up on the far reaches
of pa-dot-org, forever grinding-on about these stupid anchors in this digital wasteland)
... so here's this special OP from Port Townscend, he's in his shop, probably acuppa
coffee ... and he looks over at the Sarcas he's collected, squints his eyes... and has,
not really all of a sudden, what amounts to: an epiphany, a new understanding...

He looks at the slots in the fluke of Rex Francis' Super Sarca (cage anchor, I call it)
and then eyeballs the Excel (which looks like a Delta from the Bonneville Salt Flats,
but its total opposite). Excel also has fluke VENTS, and we know from Goodwin tests,
these two distinct cousins, they set and reset like concrete.
So... dragging what remains of poor Supreme over to the drill press:

'NO WAY IS THIS GOING TO WORK'
he drills eighteen 1/2", rather small, holes, in 4 neat rows thru the fluke on
either side of the shank/fluke connect -- dumps it in at his favorite test site,
instant set, gets his big old trawler (it's really sumtin else!!) doing the 180s

-- and BEHOLD... the radically mortified, chopped and channeled MOPREME,
pirouettes seamlessly into a series of 10 perfect resets.
(It's alive! It's alive!! It's Alive!!!)


Goodwin's perceptive holey improv works perfect.
When he hauls it up, the only mud is on the extra narrow tip with no openings. Altho
the holes seem tiny, obligatory resets are so enthusiastic he struggles to retrieve the
anchor out of the bottom -- all 10 resets.

{Should you be inspired to ventilate your rollie anchor, re-hotdipping can weaken the
steel. Amazing mcu coating/paint Aluthane will work just as well, imco. But once
opened you may return to find a hockey puck in the can.)


Visuals, before the venting, show hard-packed mud stuck on the upright shank/fluke
connect. This is where the holes in the fluke go. Goodwin shows us the mystery slots
in the Sarca anchors.
What the holes do is solve the very problem Goodwin's tests reveal that haunts the
unholey Crockna-og-Supreme duo. And why both very different SuperSarca and
Excel* anchors are successful at what anchors are supposed to do. At what the
Crockna-og-Supreme's collectively do not do.

Looking back, they weren't fully developt by testing before being rushed to market.
AND after all this time both manufacturers have to lie about these rascals -- instead
of getting them corrected and dependable. WHY? BECAUSE IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE.

Rotna & Supreme should be sold with warning stickers that anchored boats will drag.
OR remove them from sale.

If these people don't show up, don't buy their products.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Excel Video #60 does what it's supposed to, but takes some petting.

Video # 58 Mantus, Excel, Supreme - together in the doctor's office.
'MOPREME'. Documents initial surgeries on Supreme with mixed reset resistance.

#68, it's a windy day -- he drops his Primary, as always, another test... but suddenly
we're sailing rail under with a double reefed gaff main and storm jib
-- it's a beautiful day.

************************************************** *****************
Six-pac thread: SailNet, Re: Another "Next Generation" anchor enters the market
291 posts 2013-14. Subject Mantus. As you probably know these anchor forums
never stay on subject -- and sometimes certain anchor makers take heat and vitriol.
We're pretty cool. But the Brits will have the weasels swinging from the yards...



************************************************** *****************
Guess I ought to say, never met or spoke with Goodwin. Probably should not have
taken all the liberties. Forgive me, anchors are serious business, a few grins and
grimaces can't be helped.

__________________________________________________ ________
DONE WITH IT
Briefly scrolled up this page here, a chapter of 10,000 words -- it's all difficult to read
-- especially in an age of tweets. Been my education. Lack of experience has caught
me wrong sometimes. 'We' still search for that special all purpose anchor, that
doesn't exist -- and anchor designers seem incapable of creating. In the quarter
century of new generation anchors, not one stands out as the champ...

Except one:
the oldest and most copied anchor concept of nearly all later new-gen designers
-- still appeals to knowledgeable and loyal cruisers: the droit d'ainesse ace:
Poiraud Spade..
Impressive and compleat uk site: http://www.spade-anchor.co.uk/

Another, promising but muddled with exposed hexhead bolts, the unique Mantus.
Others, conceptually flawed, perhaps dangerous, well distributed by indifferent
companies.
Forums seem to suggest a significant number of owners have no idea how anchors
behave on the sea floor. Plenty information, little curiosity.
(As I've been saying, designers, some designers, also prove they have no in depth
idea what anchors do.)
An anchor that doesn't know what it is doing can take your life.

Mind set that informs and sells anchors to the public is the same as sells deodorant.
We're in the armpit of constant anchor stink.
That's why the Goodwin/PANOPE videos are so valuable.

Choosing a cruise anchor is a dangerous game. Take Care. Stay vigilant and angry.
Sure is a lot of fun.
Adios, Ebb
================================================== =

"you know when you put a stick in water it looks bent? That's why I never take baths."
echuta 13, The Amp Garage

[ebb]

What with the massive ruin and wrecking of September's 2017 Harvey, Irma, & Maria
-- and one weather predictor's forecast of violent global warming hurricanes:
"We'll have the weather we always have, but it will be more severe."

Might take a look at this excellent video with your boat under your feet.
YouTube
Hurricane survival anchoring tactics (staying on your boat) - sailing Uma [Step 54]

Young sailor takes us through Matthew (10/4/2016), survival on a single anchor,
24hrs in 24mins -- shows us his
"3 basic steps.
Protection from wind, waves, and other boats.

"Also get a... B I G... A S S ...A N C H O R !"
.
.
.
(not just any anchor -- find out by watching his video.)
Skipper Dan svUMA hyas shown up on another thread here:
Tech Forum >addendum Electric Outboards< post 21
.
.
.