New Generation Anchor

[c_amos]

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

[size=4]Toll-Free Number 1-888-586-4732[/size]

[size=2]Southeast Florida
954-962-4515[/size]

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

OBTW;

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

[ebb]

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

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

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

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

[c_amos]

Ebb,


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

Here is the link to; [size=4]Wilson: The Story of an Anchor Buoy[/size]

[ebb]

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

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

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

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

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

[CORNAN]

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

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

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

[commanderpete]

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

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

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

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

Anchors tested:

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

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

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

[ebb]

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

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


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

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

>180degree reset

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

>Stowing / launching (type of craft)

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


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

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

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

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

[c_amos]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ebb]

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

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

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

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

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

[S.Allen]

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

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

[ebb]

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

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

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

[ebb]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ebb]

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

[ebb]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[commanderpete]

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

http://www.rocna.com/press/press_061...il_testing.pdf