A rare anchor thread......

Thanks for the support.

I do participate a lot on YBW and enjoy the anchoring threads here as well. I go through times on the boat when my internet is terrible and that makes uploading photos very slow, but if there is interest I am happy to post some of the photos here as well.

I hope that by showing what is going on underwater, people can gain some understanding of what their anchor is doing. I (and my wife who has taken many of the photos) are really enjoying the photography and it's nice to get a wide audience for them.

Note when reading my comments, that I have been sent a Mantus anchor to test (which has replaced my same sized Rocna). I don't intend to let this influence any of my comments, but it is something you should be aware of. The nice thing about photographs is they provide some objective evidence so that people can judge for themselves.

The clear waters of the Med are ideal for this sort of photography and I am sure other YBW members could contribute some great photos.

Here is a sample showing a Delta and one my wife took today of a poorly set Admiralty Stockless.
 
The images of the swivel are certainly interesting but not really too much use. Conclusions seem to be 'be wary of swivels' which I think Vyv might have mentioned at least once before. But this specific swivel being indicative of any other - I think that a rash judgement. We do not know anything of its history, who made it, how it was used, was it repaired, how old was it etc - so great photography but not much else -

Except check you swivel and maybe wonder why you use one in the first place.

Images of anchors setting - again great images which seem to illustrate that new gen anchors are better than old gen anchors - and someone has said that at least once. There do seem a rather large number of repetitive shots of one or two anchors setting perfectly in the same seabed (its almost like an advert?). What is interesting is that apart from the adverts of the perfectly setting anchor the only other images are basically of old gen anchors - it looks as if the new gen anchor makers have an enormous market to aim at - but are not making much impression? If you 'extend' the conclusion then not only are there a lot of old gen anchors about but given they are not changed one can only assume the owners think they work (which seems to contradict the images).

I recall Fortress posting a couple of weeks ago suggesting that convex anchors were better than concave anchors in some seabeds in which they had tested (and both the Cruisers Forum seabed and the Fortress seabed might have been chosen to prove a point) - hopefully we will see some variation in the seabed in this series of images in the future better reflecting the cross section of seabeds that we all use.

Jonathan

Edit,


This was the post from Fortress


Quote Originally Posted by Brian@Fortress View Post
Last week we conducted 3 days of preliminary and extensive holding power tests aboard an 81-ft research vessel in the soft mud bottoms of the Chesapeake Bay, which are common in several areas of North America. We plan on inviting the boating media to follow-up tests next month for their viewing and independent verification.

We tested new and old generation steel anchors in the 44-46 lb weight range, and the CQR performed consistently well.....and better than the new generation anchors in the test. I suspect that the plow fluke of the CQR had a greater burying capability in this bottom type vs. the shovel fluke of the new generation anchors, as well as a higher effective fluke angle when being pulled along the bottom.

Regarding our product's capability of handling wind and tidal shifts, we maintain that a properly-sized and well-set Fortress anchor, with its two large and precision-machined flukes is not more likely to break free from a sea bottom than anchors with a single narrow fluke. As an example, we had great difficulty recovering the Fortress models after our tests when we were directly above them and at a 1:1 scope, so thought that one would break free at a 5:1 scope with a change of pull direction is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

That said, we clearly point out in our safe anchoring guide that for maximum safety, it is best to set two anchors if you anticipate a wind / tidal shift. As our late owner once said, sometimes when an anchor breaks free from a sea bottom, it is no longer an anchor.....it is simply a ball with no sharp edges to re-engage the bottom, and so re-setting under this circumstance is not possible.

Tests of anchors in mud are unusual, as someone mentioned above (most tests are conducted in sand), which is slightly odd as many anchorages, or place where people anchor are in fact mud. It is refreshing that someone has actually taken the trouble to do so. it is also refreshing to have some tests where one anchor is compared with others in contrast with a current fashion simply to pass glowing comments on only one model in isolation (where other designs might actually be better)

But you seem to have muddied the waters.

If I understand correctly you are suggesting that a CQR is better in mud than a 'new generation' anchor (though you seem reluctant to define what you mean by new generation). This is a real upset as most anchor tests, for example that infamous Sail/YM test, which consigned the CQR to the scrap heap in favour of new gen anchors with one anchor supposedly so much better than anything else.. In fact because of that test that whole range of anchors, including the Kobra, is damned by many - in favour of 'new gen'. (The fact they have never troid, say a Kobra, is no deterrent to condemnation). In many respects the religion of the new gen (and roll bars in particular) is based on the whole idea that they can outperform anything, anywhere.

You must be pretty confident in your results - given they contradict the mantra of the new gen converts?

Another comment made by some, cynics, is that when anchor makers conduct tests - unsurprisingly the anchors made by the anchor maker comes out on top (maybe why anchor makers choose the seabed), As an entrenched cynic I see the logic of this comment but if the best anchor is factorially better than others its difficult to fudge that sort of result - so can you be a little bit more expansive.

I'm overwhelmed by your reticence and intrigued by the post. You pose many more questions than you provide answers (again unusual for an anchor maker).

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
J Neeves said:
There do seem a rather large number of repetitive shots of one or two anchors setting perfectly in the same seabed
Click to expand...
Not really surprising as it's a fair amount of time and effort posted by a cruising sailor cataloging what's around his boat in the real world.
Personally, I think a big thank you is more in order rather than picking holes. Should our paths ever cross, noelex, a few beers shall be heading your way :cool:
 
Cruisers Forum is a commercial site taking advertising, it operates as any other business to make a profit. Mantus and Rocna are both advertisers. Noelex is a Moderator for the site. In a post in the not distant past Noelex suggested, I do not recall the exact wording, that the Mantus was sent to him (suggesting he did not buy it and its a +50kg anchor). I therefore ponder the impartiality of the repetitive images of the perfectly set anchor, the glowing comments of the same anchors and the negative comment made of virtually any other anchor - some of which do not appear in any images.

One needs to decide if there might be ulterior motives for the plethora of images and comment and possibly not take them at face value as a totally unpredjudiced service to the yachting public.

The fact the images are exceptionally good does not make the conclusions being drawn correct

Jonathan

Edit

Fortunately YBW has a different modus operandi to CF - long may it last!
 
Last edited:
J Neeves said:
In a post in the not distant past Noelex suggested, I do not recall the exact wording, that the Mantus was sent to him (suggesting he did not buy it and its a +50kg anchor).
Click to expand...
The details are in a post in the thread.
Are you suggesting of not being impartial and using a thread to dishonesty advertise Mantus?

Tinfoil hat territory IMHO.
 
I simply point out a series of coincidences - what conclusions you draw are upto you.

Of course its tinfoil hat territory - but lacking courage should never, ever, be a deterrent. When fear of abuse becomes a deterrent then we have lost something.

Frankly I think it better to air a possibility than hide it - are you suggesting it should not be aired? Possible ostrich mentality?

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
J Neeves said:
Cruisers Forum is a commercial site taking advertising, it operates as any other business to make a profit. Mantus and Rocna are both advertisers. Noelex is a Moderator for the site. In a post in the not distant past Noelex suggested, I do not recall the exact wording, that the Mantus was sent to him (suggesting he did not buy it and its a +50kg anchor). I therefore ponder the impartiality of the repetitive images of the perfectly set anchor, the glowing comments of the same anchors and the negative comment made of virtually any other anchor - some of which do not appear in any images.

One needs to decide if there might be ulterior motives for the plethora of images and comment and possibly not take them at face value as a totally unpredjudiced service to the yachting public

The fact the images are exceptionally good does not make the conclusions being drawn correct

Jonathan

Edit

Fortunately YBW has a different modus operandi to CF - long may it last!
Click to expand...

How cynical ;)

As one of the regular contributors to the anchor photos thread over on CF, I can assure you that there is no ulterior motive. We are the owners of the 45kg Spade that is repeatedly photographed performing well in different anchorages. That's because we dive to check it when we move, it sets well each time and we take a photo to add to the thread. We previously had a 27kg CQR which we considered performed well. Having taken up the challenge from noelex and started to look at anchors more closely we are glad of the information that we are learning by looking at the anchors on the sea bed more closely. You would be amazed at the number of people who still think that their anchor set is adequate after seeing the photos that we have taken (we don't offer to show the pics, people sometimes ask what we are doing and ask to see the results).

We consider the thread to be adding to our knowledge and experience of anchoring (which we do year round). Applying this knowledge has improved our technique and can only make us safer.

Thanks to noelex for starting and maintaining the thread.
 
I like to think that cynicism is healthy:) - but do understand that it can really upset some. Discouraging dissent seldom works.

But NormaBiron - I had seen your posts and was glad to see some balance. Keep it up!

Jonathan
 
J Neeves said:
I like to think that cynicism is healthy:) - but do understand that it can really upset some. Discouraging dissent seldom works.

But NormaBiron - I had seen your posts and was glad to see some balance. Keep it up!

Jonathan
Click to expand...

Cynicism's fine by me, but just thought I should put a positive spin on noelex efforts to balance the picture a little!
 
Very interested to read the comments re the CQR in mud made by Fortress. This confirms the feeling I have had that our old CQR would perform as well if not better in some muddy anchorages than our Rocna (NZ :)). There is one anchorage in particular which is heavily used with a bottom of slate based mud where we have given up getting the Rocna to set properly (unless strong winds are forecast) as we will just pull it out repeatedly if we use full revs. It is possible to get properly on but it usually takes several attempts and on a lovely still evening you feel a bit of a prat :). The old CQR on the other hand would usually set the first time.

From what I understand now though is that assuming both anchors are set we are better off with the Rocna.
 
J Neeves said:
Cruisers Forum is a commercial site taking advertising, it operates as any other business to make a profit. Mantus and Rocna are both advertisers. Noelex is a Moderator for the site. In a post in the not distant past Noelex suggested, I do not recall the exact wording, that the Mantus was sent to him (suggesting he did not buy it and its a +50kg anchor). I therefore ponder the impartiality of the repetitive images of the perfectly set anchor, the glowing comments of the same anchors and the negative comment made of virtually any other anchor - some of which do not appear in any images.

One needs to decide if there might be ulterior motives for the plethora of images and comment and possibly not take them at face value as a totally unpredjudiced service to the yachting public.

The fact the images are exceptionally good does not make the conclusions being drawn correct

Jonathan

Edit

Fortunately YBW has a different modus operandi to CF - long may it last!
Click to expand...

Did you miss the adverts at the top of every page in ybw, and the fact that moderators have been appointed from the contributors. I don't know about profit making, but not much difference in the method.

You seem to be making a repeatedly big deal about keeping your head above the parapet and such like. I think we have got the message. You only need to say it once, and we can then form our own opinions.
 
I must receive a different version of YBW as on this forum, nor Scuttlebutt, I do not seem to receive any marine ads, possibly they do not travel?

I'll try to keep my comments about parapets to a lower frequency, certainly repetition can be tedious but it might make good advertising:) But they ought to be excusable as I'm not a bricklayer

Jonathan
 
Storyline said:
Very interested to read the comments re the CQR in mud made by Fortress. This confirms the feeling I have had that our old CQR would perform as well if not better in some muddy anchorages than our Rocna (NZ :)). There is one anchorage in particular which is heavily used with a bottom of slate based mud where we have given up getting the Rocna to set properly (unless strong winds are forecast) as we will just pull it out repeatedly if we use full revs. It is possible to get properly on but it usually takes several attempts and on a lovely still evening you feel a bit of a prat :). The old CQR on the other hand would usually set the first time.

From what I understand now though is that assuming both anchors are set we are better off with the Rocna.
Click to expand...


Fortress said in later post that they preferred not to comment on their tests, other than the one post they made, until their results had been scrutinised by a cross section of independent witnesses. But the one post they made, other than suggesting that in the seabed in which they worked then the Fortress was the better performing, that the CQR was better than the new gen scoop or concave anchors. They did not qualify the statement - but I'm guessing, only guessing, they are working in a seabed that defeats the new gen concaves (undefined which and not much detail on why) and that the CQR works better - but they are not saying it 'works' - just better. Make of that what you will:(

But it is the first time I have seen a test result where that much maligned CQR has come out, possibly, on top of new gen concaves - so its interesting.

We sadly need to wait till Fortress complete their public scrutiny exercise.

Jonathan
 
GHA said:
Almost completely non-confrontational and lots and lots of interesting pics of what really happens....

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/photos-of-anchors-setting-126073.html
Click to expand...

Probably more to do with the quality of subscribers (it makes no secret that it's for commercial users rather than angry old gits).
The thread is highly factual, as opposed to the subjectivity of anchoring threads on this site.
I still see no overriding reason to shell out for a "new-age" anchor (except to save my back by using a Fortress).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top