A rare anchor thread......

[noelex]

Wow, some serious accusations have been made. Anchor threads that degenerate into personal attacks rapidly become very boring, but this requires a response.

The images I posted can be looked at and judged objectively by anyone who cares to examine them. They show anchors operating in the real world in normal anchorages.

I find it insulting that someone would suggest I am manipulating images, or selecting anchorages to distort results.

It is ironic to receive these comments from a journalist who heavily promotes one anchor manufacturer, particularly in print, where there is no recourse to challenge his views.

I would also suggest you look up the user name Djbangi on this forum and form your own conclusions about integrity and honesty. This is one of Djbangi's posts:

If you want to buy an Excel the quickest route would be contact Anchor Right direct. I friend of mine had a SARCA delivered last year, direct from Australia, and I think it was shipped (surface) direct to his yacht, then on the Mersea.

There was an excellent article in Sailing Today about 2 years ago from someone who chose an Excel. Craig's answer to this is they must have had a free anchor or they are consultants. The truth is the author is an independent journalist with no affiliation to Anchor Right (he seemed to think the Excel good) - and if you think something is good and you are a yachting journalist its quite sensible to put your money where your pen is!

Followed by the comments from a YBW moderator who did some investigation.

I didn't think anything of that until I looked up the registration address of Djbangi. The name in their email address contains Neeves. That could be a purely innocent coincidence. It could!

Don't just accept the above YBW moderator's suspicions. Have a read of Djbangi's posts: his very detailed knowledge of anchor metals, his expertise in anchor certification and finally examples of exploring the same cruising grounds. Draw your own conclusions about Djbangi's many posts supporting Neeves.

Djbangi flatly denied any association with J Neeves when confronted on the forum. J Neeves flatly denies any association with Anchor Right.

This was some time ago, but I think it is appropriate to reflect upon the honesty and integrity of the accuser when my reputation has been sullied.

The bolt together construction of the Mantus makes shipping costs to small distant markets like Australia more price competitive. While this is good for consumers, Anchor Right are no doubt concerned about a new player that reduces the price advantage of local manufacture. My photographs of a Mantus anchor performing well must be troubling. Is this the motivation behind the personal attack?

 

[J Neeves]

Actually Noelex you will find my mantra is

Anchors are a compromise, there is no one perfect anchor.

I do not work for anyone - I am completely independent.

I know about steel as I worked in the steel industry in the UK for 9 years and led a research team in the industry for a UK PLC. I have visited and been shown round Australia's only high tensile steel making facility. To extend my knowledge I have long correspondence with Corus/Tata over the galvanising of HT steels. I know a little more about galvanising because I took the trouble to visit a factory galvanising high tensile steels. I have spent weeks testing anchors, I have spent weeks defining the loads on anchor chains. I have a long series of correspondence with both Lloyds and RINA over anchor certification, prompted by a well known anchor maker's unfortunate claims (which RINA then ensured were withdrawn). I'm not sure that any of this makes me somehow beholden to anyone (though it did make me lots of enemies - exposing dishonesty does make lifelong enemies).

I'm not sure why I would be concerned at Mantus offering cheap anchors in Australia - I'm not sure of the relevance, I'm not sure they are making any inroads.

I do recall that Djbangi was a thorn in the flesh of a certain Mr Smith - surely he, Djbangi, did not upset you, personally. But being able to pull any of his quotes out of the ether with the speed you manage - interesting?

And, oddly, you ignore what are, obviously, the pure coincidences of my opening thread. If my identification of these coincidences were incorrect - you only needed to say so.

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

Failed link

I'm really struggling for Internet connection at present so only saw one of the swivel photos. However, that type was a poor performer in my tests but i suspect they were never intended by the manufacturer to be used as anchor swivels. They are not really capable of taking the likely loads.

However, to suggest the reason they failed was because they were made in China is arrant nonsense. I have quite a collection of failed shackles and other fittings at home, including my original swivel. Almost all of them have failed due to stress corrosion. The stress may be residual as a consequence of manufacture, or of load in service. The corrosion comes from lying on a warm deck in evaporated seawater, a very corrosive chloride, in the temperature required for intergranular cracking to take place. Any stainless steel would suffer the same failure mechanism, even those made in USA!

 

[J Neeves]

I could not understand Noelex' support for Mantus in the face of his previous unshakable support for Rocna. His tirade above, in which it has become a crime to develop knowledge on HT steels and Classification Society modus operandi, I see shades of Mr Smith. In fact almost as if they stand, and have stood, shoulder to shoulder for years. One might think any independent individual would welcome expertise in HT steels and CS testing - it was the vehicle used to air Rocna's dirty laundry (dirty laundry it can be mentioned of their own making). But I now wonder if Mantus is simply another Smith design (and there would be nothing wrong with this as it addresses the budget end of the market) and the learned Doctor and NASA engineer (based I think in Texas) are simply a marketing front. Given Noelex' glowing testimonies this would have logic.

But what is depressing is the fact Noelex appears to have dragged bile and hatred from years ago (that many have completely forgotten and some never knew), that had nothing to do with him - and was focussed at cleaning up a nasty smell in the ground tackle locker. It seems there is still a smell, with a slightly different odour.

I am pleased to have been part of the exposure, it was a long time ago now, of the Rocna debacle. I am not quite comfortable if people think it should have been swept under the carpet. I have no regrets and would do the same again.

And I thought the Rocna story had died away - but it was thought fit to try character assassination rather than front up. Very sad.

Jonathan

 

[GHA]

I could not understand Noelex' support for Mantus in the face of his previous unshakable support for Rocna

He's been completely open about it and that fact it was a freebie in the CF thread, is that difficult to understand?

Mantus have sent me anchor at no charge to test.

I was perfectly happy with my Rocna, but I have a deep interest in anchoring and great to have the opportunity to try out a new model.

Greg from Mantus has been great to deal with and very casual. He has just said I will send you an anchor, give me your address.
I think it shows remarkable faith in the performance of anchor that he is prepared to send one to an acknowledged Rocna fan for an evaluation.

Testing an anchor like this will take some time, given the high cost of postage halfway around the world and the limited value to the manufacturer of a second hand anchor this means I have received an anchor at no charge.

I promise it receive an honest evaluation.

 

[J Neeves]

There are a plethora of Noelex initiated threads on Mantus and anchors setting - many of them are repetitive. Have you counted the number of posts saying the same thing - I confess not to have bothered and consequently missed the gem you post (and I understand what it declares). Thank you for bringing this to my attention.


I too received a 15kg Mantus anchor to test. Greg was a very easy to deal with, until I queried, steel, bolts, removal of roll bar etc). The anchor had steel bolts outside the minimum specification declared, It had a shank about 50% better than declared. I queried QC. At the time I received mine Mantus were suggesting the anchor could be used without its roll bar, basically it was a disaster - it did not self right. The recommendation to remove the roll bar has sunk almost without trace. However Mantus did make note that without the roll bar the anchor would set more deeply (if it landed the right way up). I could confirm that this was correct - the roll bar discourages diving. Since I tested the shank has been altered to a HT steel shank (as opposed to the mild steel for the original). I tried it in a number of seabeds - it is fine in sand and a hard seabed (it has a very sharp toe) it does not work very well in soft mud and very soft sand - it simply swims and develops no compaction. It can clog with weed in a weedy seabed. In a seabed with loose rocks (or coral rubble) it works well, unless some of the rocks are large enough to clog the fluke/roll bar 'slot'. I suspect the toe, which is part of the ability of the anchor to set very quickly, might blunt or bend - but you might be able to sharpen it up.

If you are looking for an anchor for a sand, firmish mud and firm sand seabed it is fine (and cheap). If your seabed is soft sand, soft mud or has weed - I would suggest caution. You need to check it fits your bow - its quite a large beast (but if you want 'hold' you need surface area).

Anchors are a compromise.

Jonathan

 

[noelex]

But I now wonder if Mantus is simply another Smith design (and there would be nothing wrong with this as it addresses the budget end of the market) and the learned Doctor and NASA engineer (based I think in Texas) are simply a marketing front. Given Noelex' glowing testimonies this would have logic.

There are conspiracy theories and there are anchor threads, but......wow amazing.
I am speechless.

 

[J Neeves]

There are conspiracy theories and there are anchor threads, but......wow amazing.
I am speechless.

If you had not made a Smith like reply it would never have crossed my consciousness

Jonathan

 

[Dockhead]

Jesus Christ, what is it about anchors that turns otherwise normal people into aggressive wackos? Why can't people choose whatever anchors which appeal to them according to their own opinions and be happy? And why do some people feel compelled to specially stir up trouble in the rare case -- cf the original post in this thread -- when sailors have found it possible to discuss anchors in a civil and logical way?

I am another moderator on CF, and can assure everyone that the mods there, like the mods on here, are volunteers with absolutely no stake or interest in the advertising on the site. These insinuations are ludicrous.

 

[vyv_cox]

Last night we anchored with some difficulty behind a small island to the north of Amorgos. It took us five attempts to get the Rocna to bed in the hard, stony bottom and even then it was not great but the wind was light. This morning I swam around and took photos of the four anchors http://www.softshackle.com, using the same type of camera that Noelex has (made in China!) Of the four, two were well bedded, a Bugel and one I have never seen before, like a forged Danforth rather like a ship's anchor, on a German yacht. Our Rocna came a poor third with a Delta lying on its side barely dug in at all. Will try for photos but Internet is not easy for us at present.

 

[J Neeves]

The bolt together construction of the Mantus makes shipping costs to small distant markets like Australia more price competitive. While this is good for consumers, Anchor Right are no doubt concerned about a new player that reduces the price advantage of local manufacture. My photographs of a Mantus anchor performing well must be troubling. Is this the motivation behind the personal attack?

There are Mantus anchors and Mantus anchors

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/NEW-HEAV...AU_Boat_Parts_Accessories&hash=item20e558a1d5

This link illustrates a number of issues - one being that one of the biggest threats to any anchor maker is not 'the competition' but the knock offs. This is one of three different Mantus copies in Australia - which is extraordinary as Mantus has only been on the market for 2 years, only just arrived in Oz (I think the copies got here first) and though it might be a compliment to be copied none of the anchor makers really relish the idea.

The other problem is that here we have an anchor that, excluding its slot, will look like a Mantus when in the seabed. Consequently if I take an image of it, looking not very well set, then to suggest Mantus do not set would be ludicrous, it would be even more ludicrous if I extend my conclusion and say 'roll bar concave' anchors do not set - in this seabed. If the copier had been a bit more accurate and copied the Mantus a little more precisely with all the bolts etc and I saw it sitting on a bow roller, with a bent shank, then to suggest Mantus were susceptible to bending would also be ludicrous - its a copy not an original. Consequently comparing a genuine Mantus under water with another anchor underwater is not too useful as a CQR copy is not a genuine CQR and to damn genuine CQRs because something that looks like a CQR does not cut the mustard (nor the seabed) is damaging. To suggest that an unfair test procedure is valuable is also ludicrous. Any engineer with any integrity would fall about laughing that anyone would be so gullible as to believe such rubbish.

If one wants to test anchor one needs a level playing field, same conditions, genuine products of a similar size. To test otherwise is unfair to the genuine product (which may of may not be any good - but treat 'the competition' the same way). Equally to suggest 'unfair' testing and conclusions are logical is dangerous as the conclusions might have ulterior motives.

But to return to the copy, above. Examples like this need to be 'nipped in the bud' - to the uninitiated its a Mantus. When it fails (the shank looks to have the strength of damp MDF) its Mantus' name that will possibly be sullied. In the same way on another forum a batch of images was published purportedly of genuine anchors but they showed bent anchors - the person who posted the images was unable to confirm where they were taken, which yachts they were on nor that he had bothered to check they were genuine. Without corroboration such images damage a suppliers reputation perhaps correctly perhaps not - but without verification it looks like mud slinging. How do I know - I was accused of abrogating my responsibilities for not investigating (which was difficult in the absence of any background information).

But whether Anchor Right are concerned at cheap supply of genuine Mantus, would not really have any idea. What does seem evident is that people have fairly entrenched ideas, they like concave (or not) they like convex (or not) or they like a Fortress type (or not). Many of these entrenched ideas are, sadly, based on inaccurate and biased testing - as Fortress seem to alluding to in the tests they have conducted recently (where they suggest the CQR is better than the roll bar anchors). With these entrenched views it is likely that Mantus will take sales from Rocna and the Supreme as the Delta is the main competition (or market opportunity) for Anchor Right - but maybe you should ask, they do have an email address And if I were Mantus (or any other anchor maker who finds cheap copies in the market place) I'd be seriously worried about my name being sullied by these copies and would find this threat much more worrying than the competition.

Jonathan

 

[Storyline]

Must be very frustrating for an anchor manufacturer/designer to have your product copied. It is also very suprising that people are prepared to save a few pounds and buy a copy product that the safety of your boat may depend on. It is bad enough when the main risk is a lower standard of metal but when it comes to the Mantus there is extra risk because of the knock down nature of the design. There is no way the average punter can tell the quality of the bolts supplied. Personally i have an instinctive fear of relying on an anchor which has its shank attached by bolts - I think I would fret about whether I had tightened them properly - the thought that the bolts themselves could fail does not bear thinking about !

 

[noelex]

In the same way on another forum a batch of images was published purportedly of genuine anchors but they showed bent anchors

The issue of anchor copies is a serious one for both anchor manufacturers and consumers. However, in most cases the copies are very easy to pick even for those without a great interest in anchors, as your example shows.

I suspect the photographs of bent anchors that your are referring too are mine.
I published photos on another sailing forum of several anchors with bent tips. I personally took all these images. Rex from Anchor Right demanded their removal. Reluctantly I complied only because I thought there was a risk of legal action.

Rex himself has posted photos of bent opposition anchors on forums. I think it is very unfortunate that he will not allow others to do the same.

The Excel anchor has a thin tip. The Sarca and Super Sarca also have a thin tip in some models (the tip design changes with size on the Sarca). This is beneficial in allowing the anchor to set better in hard and weedy substrates. It is difficult to gauge how this translates in the real world to the risk of bending.

As consumers, one mechanism we have for determining the extent of problems like this is the free exchange of information on forums. It is unfortunate when manufacturers become involved to circumvent this. My view is that members can, and should, get to judge these sort of photos for themselves. If the anchor is incorrectly identified and it is copy, this will usually be pointed out by other members.

I took the trouble of sending Rex multiple, large size, images of the bent anchors so he could identify if any were copies. He refused to do so.

I have posted photos of other manufacturers bent anchors (as many people have) on the forums. I hope to do so in the future. I have never heard of a similar case where a manufacturer has demanded removal of the images, but perhaps this happens more than we realise.

 

[J Neeves]

Noelex,

I take no pleasure in naming an individual who has been found wanting and I'm not going to now - but I do retain the correspondence. It was suggested I was abrogating a responsibility in not investigating the images of bent anchors (a valid point - as young Mr Smith recalls) - I had some correspondence with the individual and I admitted to never having actually seen the images (of which I was accused of ignoring) - I happened to be offshore with poor internet coverage (and Vyv indicates this is an issue). I cannot prove this - except my complete ansence from Forum at the time (and some know I can be vociferous). The images were then removed (before I saw them). The individual who was free with his suggestion of dereliction of duty was unable to provide: location, name of vessel and admitted not to have been able to provide any authenticity. The individual initially said they were taken with the camera the person owned, then a phone and then I think the partner's phone. The person never volunteered to send the images to me by email - and members here will confirm that I am free with my email address and identity.

When I take images that look at a questionable product, particularly if it is going to be damning, I always, without fail, take an image of the name of the vessel, know the location and have a date and the camera appears in 'properties'. I have 2 cameras and never use a phone camera.

Excuse me if I am slightly cynical (repeated word - apologies to the sensitive) but if I was taking images of bent anchors (I think there were 6) and I was going to publish them I'd make very sure I had all the back-up and background to support my case. I would try to check - in this case - how the anchor was damaged (with 6 bent anchors that i was going to damn someone - I'd want to find one owner, at least.

The images are useless without some form of corroboration - that I can check with the owners - so name of vessel, location - anything. So to repeat the story without any, not one word of authenticity looks - well, questionable - at best.

When I received my Mantus anchor I took it to an independent metallurgical lab and had it tested, it had a MPa of around 500 (against the min spec of 350 MPa). I published the result and had an image of the shank being tested. When I had 2 bent Rocna's I had a statement from the owner (he was unlucky to have had 2 out of spec models) and I had them tested by an independent laboratory - the results were published in YM. I crossed my 'T's and dotted my 'i's. I did not leave anything to chance. I was sure of the information. Of course Mr Smith has damned me ever since for my persistance, honesty and integrity - but that's all part of life's rich pattern.

Noelex you look very much to be on a mission - the question is why and what's the agenda.

Moderators are supposed to be pillars of society, fair, smoothing ruffled waters (as they are on YBW) what's so different about other forums?

Jonathan

 

[noelex]

Jonathan, I am glad you are taking this matter more seriously. Investigation of bent anchors is something that should interest you. I have been very surprised you have dismissed this so easily.

As a strong supporter of Anchor Right I think it would be great for you to see the images. In fact, I would like anyone who is interested to be able to see them. Unfortunately, I cannot email these images to you without risk of litigation for distributing them. As you are good friends with Rex, why not ask him for the images? I sent him some high resolution ones including additional images taken from different angles etc.

The photos were all taken in Melbourne at Sandringham Yacht Club, St Kilda Marina and JV Marine about February 2014. I did not take a copy of boat names, but it may be possible to get these from the additional photographs. If anyone is near these locations, perhaps they could drop in and take some pictures before the anchors "disappear".

I am not sure why the multiple cameras bother you. I photographed the anchors with whatever I had at the time. If you want me to prove I own these cameras I will take a photo now of any random object you care to mention and email it to you. I think it is possible to match the digital signature, which is why I presume you are asking. This should at least prove I own the cameras concerned.

I have nothing to hide with these photographs, apart from (very unfortunately) the images themselves .

I welcome any technical scrutiny. It is of concern to me that I could see so many bent anchors in such a short space of time. Even with the Rocna problem I don't think any individual personally each saw more than one or two bent anchors.

 

[J Neeves]

The whole point was that I took the issue more seriously than you did - you were quite happy to publicly damn, and publicly haul through the coals, a manufacturer without there being any independent means to confirm your 'story'. To you it seemed a joke - when I queried you seemed somewhat bewildered that anyone might question you images. (Which is what would happen in a defamation case) In fact could you (did you) confirm they were genuine anchors. Did you confirm they were not damaged through misuse - no you happily damned a supplier with no thought of responsibility (because you are able to hide as a non-entity). Basically it was childish - but damaging. It was sloppy. If you, or your Forum, had been charged with defamation I would have been surprised if you would have survived - you are a Moderator, not someone's avenging angel.

No, I want you to send me the images - they are your images and do not belong to anyone else. I am not a supporter of Anchor Right, I think their Excel is good design - finish, no more no less. I think the Spade is a good design, no more, no less. I think Fortress a good design no more, no less. I am not a 'good friend' of Rex Francis any more than I am a good friend of reps from Raymarine, Lagoon or Maxwell. I am cordial with many suppliers - I need to be, its part of what I do. If you want to authenticate the images do so - then arrange to send them to me. But do expect me to do your work for you. You send whatever images you have to the various locals and when you have satisfied yourself you have the right names then I'll check. As Mr Smith is well aware I leave no stone unturned. I'll check with the owners, each and every one and I'll publish their comments. If they say their anchors were bent through being stuck in rocks or attacked by a rabid dog - I will publish same - so make sure you get it right and if the images turn out to be accidental, a fault of the owner - then I will publish the same which will leave you to consider your options. if they turn out to be a fault of the manufacturer, then they will need to consider their options.

But I reiterate - being ready to damn a manufacturer and seriously thinking people would take your evidence at face value is sloppy. It might work on some forum with fancy images but others look more cynically. You are measured by the company you keep - so lift the game.

And as you raise the issue I know of 4 bent Rocnas and I have not been looking. But I would not have mentioned it, except you raised it.

When you a#re ready to email me the full detail and images send me a PM.

Jonathan

Edit: If you desire I take this, as you put it, seriously (which with the correct evidence is my forte) - then as you are so sure of your ground I will need - in the fullness of time

Your full name, name of vessel, Australian registration number: as I cannot publish anything without your identity (my media insurance will not cover me) - this is to protect me in any defamation case.

 

[Brian@Fortress]

What does seem evident is that people have fairly entrenched ideas, they like concave (or not) they like convex (or not) or they like a Fortress type (or not). Many of these entrenched ideas are, sadly, based on inaccurate and biased testing - as Fortress seem to alluding to in the tests they have conducted recently (where they suggest the CQR is better than the roll bar anchors). Jonathan

Not to side track this discussion, but during our 3 days of extensive and preliminary testing aboard an 81-ft research vessel in the soft mud bottoms of the Chesapeake Bay, we found that a 45 lb CQR had a better trajectory and higher effective fluke angle when being pull through these bottoms, which resulted in greater holding power readings for the CQR versus the new generation anchors of similar weight. We had equipment aboard which allowed for calculating the exact same scope, pull speed and distance, and we are inviting the boating media aboard for our next series of tests in late July/early August to offer an independent review, verification and reporting of the testing method and results.

 

[vyv_cox]

Not to side track this discussion, but during our 3 days of extensive and preliminary testing aboard an 81-ft research vessel in the soft mud bottoms of the Chesapeake Bay, we found that a 45 lb CQR had a better trajectory and higher effective fluke angle when being pull through these bottoms, which resulted in greater holding power readings for the CQR versus the new generation anchors of similar weight. We had equipment aboard which allowed for calculating the exact same scope, pull speed and distance, and we are inviting the boating media aboard for our next series of tests in late July/early August to offer an independent review, verification and reporting of the testing method and results.

Interesting result. I shall be pleased to read the full content of the test programme and results. However, as one who almost never anchors in soft mud I'm not sure of the relevance to me. I would have thought the 'best' anchor was the one(s) that penetrate, hold and reset in the widest variety of seabeds, rather than do quite well in just one. I have yet to hear of anyone who went back to a CQR after using a new generation anchor, even if they customarily anchor in soft mud.

 

[Brian@Fortress]

Interesting result. I shall be pleased to read the full content of the test programme and results. However, as one who almost never anchors in soft mud I'm not sure of the relevance to me. I would have thought the 'best' anchor was the one(s) that penetrate, hold and reset in the widest variety of seabeds, rather than do quite well in just one. I have yet to hear of anyone who went back to a CQR after using a new generation anchor, even if they customarily anchor in soft mud.

Vyv, I appreciate the input. Soft mud is very common here across the pond in bays, lakes, and rivers. It is certainly possible that in addition to soft mud, the CQR might also perform better in difficult bottoms such as grass, weeds, and rocks where the roll bars of the new generation anchors could very well impede penetration, so the advantage of the roll bar anchors might be limited to only harder soils such as clay and sand.

While I agree with your assessment that no one goes back to a CQR after using a new generation anchor, it also seems common that few switchers purchase a new generation anchor that is the same weight as their CQR.....they typically size up to a much heavier new generation model, so by that alone, they should experience a notable performance improvement.

 

[noelex]

Well its nice to see the thread back on track. Thanks Brian.

I must admit I am not very impressed with the CQR overall. It does well in medium substrates, but really struggles in anything hard.

This is not my best photo, but the boat attached to this anchor was slowly dragging backwards (note the disturbed sand) while the owners were having lunch. The anchor dragged about 30m while being set and then a further 8-9m.

There is a bit of debris around the hinge, which may have effected the results. Plus a lot of weed around around the fluke around from the drag.