Here is a chart of the testing results:Originally Posted by ebb
SAIL testing
Here is a chart of the testing results:
Steve Mair of Manson did reply to the email I sent about the hoop shipping mud. After explaining that the anchor took a lot of time to develop he says, "The winglets were placed underneath to help the 'sole' of the anchor stop from settling deep into the bottom prior to the anchor setting."
Then he says they may play with the top location of the 'winglets' this summer. I'd ask if there is enough braking power by these 'winglets' on the underside of the Supreme for anything but firm sand? Mud, for instance?
I believe the concept is that the anchor is more likely to trip forward when setting with the pull on the shank if there is a bit of 'stop' under the sole. THAT is a new idea in anchor design, and I'm not convinced. In grass bottom the impediments sticking out of the sole may stop the blade from a deep set. Steve Mair says they haven't had a complaint yet! But Craig says Manson's have been returned to the vender to exchange for Mocna's. May have been the website.
Perhaps the shank has to be made a bit longer to weigh the tip down? Tho the chain leader should take care of that aspect.
imco the impediments may have - in the Sail/Santa Cruz test and in that harder bottom of the three test locations - kept the Manson Supreme from digging in deeper befor it released. Dragged. Tore out. What, at 4000#? Of course the Rocna has the same thingies.
One thing: they used 1" nylon warp. How much stretch in that stuff?
Congratulations to Rocna on its great showing!
Last edited by ebb; 10-09-2006 at 07:07 AM.
Saw this neat fitting used (instead of a shackle) for connecting chain to the anchor shank on a UK Spade Anchor site.
A double jaw toggle on the end of the anchor would indeed make a slim easy to slide in channel or house fitting for the chain - instead of the usual oversized anchor shackle. But thinking about it, the clevis pins have cotterpins that make fine meathooks. Can you trust your boat to soft cotterpins? And they be another maintenance item, have to replace them regularly. That's a problem for me, a shackle can be wired secure and a clevis pin can't.
Secondly, I haven't found double jaw toggles in galvanize. It doesn't seem like a type of fitting that would be because of the closed inside bearing surfaces. Stainless steel on the end of a galvanized anchor ain't smart, either. Maybe titanium? I'm gonna associate this not so good idea with a Spayed anchor niow!
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________
The connection of chain to anchor is one of the oldest problems around. The screwpin bow shackle is still a pretty good connect. The only annoying thing is the pineye sticking out. But that eye can be wired easy and can be cranked on when time to change the shackle. Course if the shackle gets corroded you might wish you had a pin you could knock out. Galvanised are cheap, easy to find, multi-useful.
I've seen a screw shackle that has a small tidy shouldered head with a small eye just big enough to pass three or four turns of wire thru. They may have been more 'D' shaped too - obviously meant to be channel friendly. Wiring can be done neat, but it's still pretty funky.
I think a better compact galvanised loose pin shackle is yet to be invented.
>>>Wiring the pin certainly makes the skipper feel better. I can 'see' a shackle forged with wire grooves in its body into which wire can be wound from the pin. The wire would be protected from chaff, and the pin could be knocked thru when the chain has to be removed.
>>>Also, a similar idea: If there were holes thru the fat part of an appropriate galvanised anchor shackle body the clevis pin goes thru, a cotterpin in each side could go thru matching holes in the clevis pin and - here's the thing - the cotters would simply be bent, squeezed out of harms way into grooves forged into the sides of the shackle Simple: the grooves would protect the cotters from chaff and becoming meathooks. How come nobody thought of that befor?$12.95 at yer favorite marine store!
Last edited by ebb; 10-21-2006 at 09:31 AM.
Sail On Anchors
A copy of the October, 2006 Sail Magazine was on the optometrist table today, so the reading was a little more pleasant than usual. Beginning on page 60, there is a rather lengthy article on anchor testing that is a worthwhile read.
There main conclusion: "Anchor design is evolving, but our results still confirm the rule of thumb that every boat should carry at least three different anchor designs and weights to deal with a wide variety of bottom types."
The SAIL testing has been discussed above.
In any case their conclusion is one thing we disagree with. As a matter of fact, several anchors displayed a consistency of performance that is very desirable. Furthermore it is hard to see how they can draw such a conclusion, when they have only tested on one bottom type, not a variety.
Craig,
Another take on that quoted statement is that the main sponser of the comparison tests, West Marine, is overstocked with unevolved anchors. They'll have to have inventory clearance sales to cut rate them to unevolved skippers.
I don't think the danforths will disappear suddenly from the stores. But they are being generally seen now (confirmed by testing) as single bottom, limited use anchors.
95% (made that up) of all exposed bow anchors you see in marinas are danforth, plow, or claw. Of course 95% (made that up) of all marina boats don't go sailing either.
But those that do leave harbor have the right to expect the best and most versitile anchors to be made available to them. We had better be informed.
That's why the methodology and intent of the testing event is so important.
That's why we have double blind testing.
West Marine, Sail, Yachting Monthly ought to take the responsibility and sponser tests of the EVOLVED ANCHORS (along with some of the usual suspects, of course) ON OTHER BOTTOMS. This ought to be done ASAP. Yachting Monthly could do the European cruising areas.
Using the word "evolving" by the advertising supported press is an acceptance of the inevitable. Kind of a declaration of merchandising war. Two or three things can happen. One, they can let this revelation die by forgetting the subject, and hope it all gets plowed under. Two, they can start making deals with the mutant anchor makers. Three, they can start patent-breaking modifications or have blatant copys made of competitor's "evolving" anchors.
If testing by the Big Boys using scientific and publically acceptable methodologies on other bottoms was done, they would show they really are putting the sailing public's safety foremost. Insurance companies and regulators are also looking on with interest , no doubt.
Seems it ultimately is to (nearly) everybody's benefit that the SERIES OF TESTS continues to go forward!
Last edited by ebb; 11-16-2006 at 07:15 AM.
Not quite necessary to beat this dead horse again.
The same players are out there - there is a new to me site that attempts to classify the new anchors. It's not a forum so we don't have Craig and Alaine in our face.
However the site is a British marine store that flogs the French anchors Spade and Sword. (That's an anomaly if there ever was one!) There are six or seven pages that try to develop a criteria for comparing anchors. I say 'try' because glaring assumptions are made (like about the shape of the fluke) that only thorough and well designed testing will prove. And conclusions are colored in that the writer features the Spade in his business, but the methodology is interesting and seems to have been written by a sailor. A good whack at comparing the new single-fluke quick setting anchors.
West Marine now carries the Manson Supreme. Seems that this decision was generated from the Santa Cruz 'tests' we talked about above. Don't know that Mocna got in, even tho they placed as well as the Supreme, if not better. Big companies hang together. The edge was probably due to Manson being able to produce product cheaper than the smaller maker. And remember the primary sponser for the recent tests was West Marine.
Manson Supreme is now being talked about on cruising forums, with some boats converting their primary anchor to the Supreme, demoting their bruce. Larger boats can carry more anchors. We're looking for the versatile multi-bottom anchor.
And we're still looking for more testing. Don't trust anybody's opinion on the shape and style, tip weight, fluke area, dry setting, etc when they are comparing the new anchors. It's all BS. It's not so much what is said but who is saying it!
http://www.bluewatersupplies.com/new_gen_anchors.htm
google> New Generation Anchors - Explained, Compared and Rated -
Interested in your accessment.
And buy a new anchor from an independant dealer (ANY independant dealer) like Azure Marine, ok?
Last edited by ebb; 02-01-2007 at 11:25 AM.
Somebody else will have to pick apart the comparison in that link. It does introduce another anchor--the Sword by Spade. However, it looks just like their Oceane anchor, which didn't do so well.
That guy Alain from Spade seems to be a very annoying character. Don't think I could buy anything associated with him.
The Manson Supreme 25 has jumped up in price to $235.
http://www.azuremarine.com/store/det...ct_id=MAN:S25G
West Marine is charging $245 for the Manson. I guess you would save shipping costs
http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs...allpartial/0/0
Rocna has a distributor in Florida that is selling the Rocna 10kg for $329
http://storesense4.megawebservers.co...taloglist.html
The choice has now become more painful
Last edited by commanderpete; 02-01-2007 at 01:14 PM.
Here is our assessment. With tongue partly placed in cheek...New Generation Anchors - Explained, Compared and Rated -
Interested in your accessment.
New Generation Anchors - Explained, Compared, and Rated
Last edited by craigsmith; 07-16-2011 at 04:58 AM.
I guess the Manson supreme was not represented since it is the same as the Rocna.
Just less expensive.
.... Thanks Craig
Certainly, we do not consider cheap copies of other types, especially of our own - why would we provide such free exposure?
There are also copies of the Spade which could be included in that page, but why bother.
As commanderpete notes, the price difference now in the US is much reduced, and the discrepancy between the original Rocna and Manson Supreme anchor now is truly a case of "you get what you pay for".
I like to give Craig Smith a hard time on various forums, mainly because he does such a great job of defending his Rocna anchor (I am sure it is a fine anchor). I personally might have bought one had it not been for the savings I had with my Manson Supreme (good anchor).
Anyways, Rocna has some pretty good info on their web site. Here is a table they posted;
What I noticed was the big difference required to hold a smaller boat.
Yet another metric by which the small boat wins. ;D
Yeah, what's up with the Manson anchor?
There is simply no economic reason for the price to jump from $174 to $235 overnight.
Something more sinister is afoot.
West Marine wanted to carry the anchor.
West Marine wanted their usual obscene mark-up.
West Marine wouldn't allow their price to be undercut by the distributor.
Their usual Walmart tactics.
O.K. Craigsmith. $300 and we have a deal.
Final Offer
Ok, I have not made any progress on my anchor roller in the last two weeks (I made the roller base, and faired it into the deck, re-non-skidded and painted the foredeck and then the wx got cold).
Of course the Manson will ride on the roller.
So, I decided to look for a replacement for the R.O.D. B. F.(Rusty old Danforth, Bent Fluke) that rides on the bow. I plan to keep it up there hanging off of the clips as a secondary anchor... so.
I like the Fortress anchors. I have used them on OPB's, and really like pulling them in.Oh yea, and the way they set and hold too...
So, I look at their chart... fx-7 lists 16-27' boats... (too small for me) so I go to the fx-11. That is better at 28-33' but then I look at the FX-16. The size is not much bigger then the R.O.D. and you could anchor a fleet of our boats on the thing..
So then I look at the second R.O.D. I have on board. It is a smallish one that sits in the lazy-rat hatch on top of 75' of rode that I can literally toss overboard with one hand as a 'parking brake' (the anchor, not the rode.)
So I go ahead and bite the bullet and buy an FX-7 to replace the R.O.D......
SO, they arrive.
First, I am really impressed with the quality. I have looked and used others, but I am feeling pretty good about these.
So, I put the FX-7 together.....it 'seems' as big as the R.O.D.B.F. I have not yet tried but am thinking this think will not fit in my lazy-rat hatch without some twisting and turning... not too cool for the 'parking brake'.
Then I put the FX-16 together... again great quality. I will say 'great' anchor... even though I have not yet used it.
It is 'great' in that it looks like it belongs on the bow of the queen marry...
(ok, maybe not quite that big)
Thankfully it can be taken apart, and stowed below as a storm anchor.
On re-checking the measurements the FX-7 will fit on the bow as the replacement for the R.O.D. B. F.
So...
Fortress makes a less fancy version of their anchors called the 'guardian' series. They are not anodized, and they do not offer the adjustable fluke feature (for really soft mud). I looked at them, but decided against them as I noticed they seem to test lower too... can't really esplain that.
Buuuutttt...... there is a smaller guardian.. a 2.5# model that should fit in the lazy rat nicely.... ;D
.......please help me friends. ;D
This tutorial
Fisherman (kedge, Herreshoff)
Plough (CQR - rigid and articulated shank)
Danforth (swing shank, endless makers: Fortress)
I would describe these as dual fluke, including the plough which has the dualflukes welded together. The movable shanks are implicated in anchors breaking out of set when the wind changes.
Second classification is the new style anchor which is essentially a single fluke design. These anchors intend to be versatile, useful in diverse bottoms. Most have rigid shanks.
Claw (paw) (Bruce, SuperMax, Horizon and many others)
Spade (Delta style that usually have a narrow fluke of various shapes)
Spades with roll bars (Manson Supreme, Bugel, Sarca, and others)
And perhaps a third generation anchor that at first looks like most of the others but may almost be a breakthru design.
Ultra (a new Turk on the scene that describes itself as MIXED)
info@boyutmarine.com
www.quickline.us
It's stainless steel and in price far out of reach for most of us. Designer unknown at the moment. Obviously he saw a lot of StarTrek as the Ultra looks like a stealth Klingon Sportship. All kinds of angles. It does have the classic look of the 2nd classification anchors with very important differences.
It is unstable in any position except upright in the set or burying position. When you put it down it rights itself immediately. (This may not be the case ofcourse with a length of chain attached! But arguably it would want to be upright.))
It's sharp narrow tip is bent down. This creates an arc (as I've noted above with the Sarca) that can only make it quickly set itself - and with increased wind SET ITSELF DEEPER.
Imco this is of prime importance to a small cruiser with limited anchor choices and anchor weights on board.
The literature is the first I've noticed to advertise that it sets on inclined ("reversed") surfaces! The arched tip makes it a candidate for the boat's primary anchor, storm anchor.
On the bottom of the Ultra the tip is wedge-shaped because it is weighted - the bulk of the tip stops back at a designed point and gives the anchor a rocker that also gets it to tilt into its set.
(Ofcourse I don't know any of this for a fact!)
It is possible to imagine this anchor as not foulable by line or chain.
It is fabricated, they say, from 316L. The polished stainless and design is slippery and could only arrive clean back at the bow roller.
There is no way of knowing if this is a casting or is welded together. How it is made is of major importance to an exposed s.s. anchor in seawater environment.
The Ultra is sold by another new small company with a locker full of interesting inventions. The presentation is awkward and needs to be revised for the american market. The anchor will probably have to sell itself which will be difficult because of its price. It's unique properties are not evident in pictures.
And it has a rather tired name: Ultra... hmmmmm, yeah....so???
Last edited by ebb; 04-20-2007 at 09:30 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote