Anchors. I hate to do this but...

[Djbangi]

Life on Mars, or places like it.

Hi Gmac
Its good of you to come to Peter's defence, pity we did not know earlier. I have no reason to doubt anything you have said but there are questionable videos and apparent abuse of performance data (the content of which have been thrashed to death on this thread) which were developed when Peter was still in the saddle. In the absence of any contrary view it has been assumed that Peter condoned these videos and manipulation of the data. As the owner of the original business he takes full responsibility for whatever was on the Rocna website and whatever was 'written' in forums, whether he knew about it or not. In the same way that Holdfast are responsible for Smith junior's more recent activity.

I think Snooks has been examining the apparent abuse of the West Marine data as published in Sail, which I think has been on the website for years, and it will be illuminating to see what conclusion he comes to. I am hoping the investigation is not simply shelved - accusations have been made of falsification, misrepresentation and some form of definitive answer might be more useful than it be left 'hanging'

My view is similar to yours - if a child of mine behaved like Peter's son I would be ashamed and embarassed and would go out of my way to stop such activity. But equally if I were a manufacturer associated, directly or not, to such activity now I would have closed Smith junior down using whatever legal powers were available to me.

But thanks for the comment.

 

[CONGO]

Hi G MAC,
Rex Here from anchor right Australia, good to see you agree with most forums Re MR , C, you have known him long before most here that on the odd occasion still defend him, I to have a son, three infact, the youngest is in charge of manufacturing and quality control.

He has been watching these threads since Mr C started his rampage and commented, Dad, don’t expect me to release my ideas on anchor technology, I’m over it, if Mr. C can get away with what he is doing, saying and not been held accountable why would I be bothered, there are so many ramifications throughout the industry if someone can get away with this type of marketing, or worse becomes successful because of it.

There is no which hunt, I just think most would like to see him no longer appear on these forums discrediting opposition companies as has been the case, being an inventor and I might add I am the only inventor on this forum commenting so there are not to many of us, It would be impossible for you G MAC to understand when you are on the receiving end from someone with Mr C intelligence.

To truly design, manufacture and market a product for an inventor the hurdles of being successful l are bad enough without what we have been witnessing, if Peter is not involved I scratch my head, if you take the disused link of Alain’s, the information there is just not true, if it was I wouldn’t have a problem, as an inventor in its current state I do, once again I request who is responsible for this to remove it, or at least clean it up, G Mac, you are experienced in anchor testing as many times on forums you have disclosed your experience in this field.

Look at the credits as to who made the little gem on page 39 of this thread, who’s driving the 4x4, Mr. C Explanation for this gem was that Anchor Right Australia were playing around, monkey business, the gem was Rocna’s response, problem being overall and above the monkey business that was clearly being played out thereby Rocna, it was the old model Sarca, why wasn’t the S/super sarca used in this comparison? The S/ Sarca had been well and truly released by then, I ask this of you G Mac as you appear on the credits.

Yes there are personal repercussions for me re comments that I have made myself on this forum as Mr .C is a fellow human being and feel uncomfortable making comments such as I have, I also have many customers requesting that I get involved as what has been said and done by M.r C has upset many people.

At the end of the day regardless of how I come across if my input helps deliver to you the end user a better anchor backed up with DATA that hasn’t been altered then that’s a good outcome. Who knows even my son might be encouraged to have a go.

I don't want to start a war, or be cynical,but am interested in your version, explanation.

Regards.
Rex.
Anchor Right Australia.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

GMac,

What you are describing is the stereo-typical "spoilt brat", which probably confirms the impression which many have already come to.

You tell us that Smith Snr is far away from all this, both geographically and electronically and it does appear that he is too remote to be involved. However, I think that he must accept some responsibility for all this; not least because of some of the content of some of his early writings which, from the start, set the "knocking" agenda which Jnr has taken up with a relish which he has turned into an artform.

That leaves Smith Jnr and his mysterious non-involved involvement (!) with Rocna. It increasingly looks as if they really are made for each other.

Incidentally, whilst Smith Jnr and Rocna have ducked out of sight here, Jnr has popped up again on "Cruisers Forum". Amongst other things, he has been arguing the toss over what happened here when he ran away from Manson's test rig challenge.

 

[RichardS]

I think Snooks has been examining the apparent abuse of the West Marine data as published in Sail, which I think has been on the website for years, and it will be illuminating to see what conclusion he comes to. I am hoping the investigation is not simply shelved - accusations have been made of falsification, misrepresentation and some form of definitive answer might be more useful than it be left 'hanging'

See post 376 on http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265267&page=38

It was a very long time ago but, based on the original data provided by Brian from Fortress, I believe that it is the SAIL Magazine interpretation of the West Marine data which is open to challenge. It is the SAIL interpretation which Rocna have re-printed as it places the Rocna slightly ahead of the Fortress.

YBW interpreted the West Marine data differently and the YBW interpretation places the Fortress slightly ahead of the Rocna in the particular circumstances chosen for this series of tests.

Richard

 

[Brian@Fortress]

Once again, if anyone wants to review the charts that Richard referenced above, they were posted on threads 308 and 310.

I do not expect to see the names of the magazines or their logos on either of the modified Rocna charts for very long.

 

[Djbangi]

WM test - Rocna, Sail and YM

The whole WM tests is interesting. I assume that WM paid for the tests and invited a group of journalists to both help with the work and to subsequently report on the findings. These same journalists are often quoted by anchor makers (when they want to use the WM reports as part of a marketing campaign) as being independent and impartial observers. A number of articles were produced, of which there was one in Sail and one in Yachting Monthly, I have seen one other.

I was always of the firm belief that data was, well data, and as soon as it was interpreted it was not then data but simply an interpretation. When I read the articles there was no suggestion the numerical information had been interpreted - it seemed in the articles that the quantitative information was data and we the readers were left to make our own interpretation. I confess I did not sit down and examine the data in both articles and compare and have subsequently always referred to the YM article (my bias must demonstrate something - but I'm not sure what)

The most fascinating part is that both articles were written by the same people, the same joint authors, - so how did they make one interpretation for Sail and a completely different interpretation for Yachting Monthly? It is, basically impossible for Snooks to say he stands by his colleague for the YM article but that he does not stand by the same colleague for the Sail article - or its possible but not logical.

So much for the journalists being independent and impartial observers - another belief dashed!

 

[GMac]

A quick response for Rex Mr Sarca.

Yes I know that video very well. Without adding more dribble to it all I can assure the viewers that as many myths there are around it and most are untrue.

Each and every anchor received the exact same treatment.
None were pulled faster than any others, it was set up so any speed differences were minimal if even there.
It was not a 'which hold the most test' even if the numbers were watched and recorded.
The bottom was a lot more uniform that is appears at times.
No it wasn't a Rocna test thing, they just happened to hear and arrive so became cheap labour.

Rocna has used small parts of the raw video in their finished website video. I just sussed their version and don't see any signs of tampering with any of the beach bit. I do see a brand marketing company using some of the raw vid to highlight their own product and minimising or totally excluding the others. I do quite like the way it's all been spliced together even if I don't believe some parts of it.

That is called marketing and what one would expect from a marketing company, as Holdfast/Rocna is. I am assuming most people do realise there are 2 truths in the world. One is the actual truth and one is 'marketing truth'. Sometimes they meet sometimes they don't. I would also expect most people who view anything on any marketing website, TV, papers or whatever with a grain of salt. It would be highly unlikely for Rocna to show any other anchor doing well just as it would be for Sarca to show it coming second in any way to a competitors either. I would expect if that happened the marketing dept would be looking for a new job.

Why that particular Sarca? It was just the 1st one pulled off the shelf, nothing more and nothing less, just like all the others used. As far as I can remember there weren't differing versions to choose from at the time.

Yes I sell anchors. No I don't only sell Rocnas only. In fact as far as we can tell we have the widest range under one roof in the world or at least close to. We have the Spade and it's clones, the Rocna being just one, plus a pile of the old school ones also.

No I don't get any form of payment from any anchor manufacturer, least of all Rocna. They seem to be going out of their way to piss me off, something I have mentioned to the owners multiple times and for the final time just last week. Sooner or later if they keep pushing buttons it will backfire on them, I believe I might be one in a large cue though. Why I'm semi defending them here and now does mystify me a bit to be honest. Lucky for them I have lots of respect for Peter, which is one reason a few people haven't said what they could say.

Is Rocna a bad anchor? No of course not.
Is it the best? No of course not.
Can I buy a better all round option? Yeap we think you can.

So just what is the best anchor? There isn't one best anchor, anyone who thinks there is is totally deluded. There are 'the best one' for many specific situations and there are a lot of good all round ones and there are piles of total s**ters. The best anchor all depends on what you're doing when and on what.

 

[Rocna]

Official response from Rocna Anchors (with apologies for the delay)

Hi all,

Steve Bambury, CEO of Rocna Anchors here. It’s long overdue but I’m here to acknowledge what’s been happening in this thread and clear some things up. There are a lot of points that have been raised, and I’d like to address what I see as the main issues.

Craig Smith and confusion about his involvement with Rocna.
As you know, Craig Smith indicates that he is ‘affiliated with Rocna’ – we’d like to explain the situation regarding that. Craig, in conjunction with his father Peter Smith, is responsible for the design of the Rocna anchor. The Smiths license to us the right to produce and distribute the Rocna. So in that sense, there is of course a connection between Craig Smith and Rocna Anchors.

However, Craig is not an employee of Rocna Anchors and in no way is he authorised to publicly represent Rocna Anchors. All comments from Craig are solely his own opinions and do not represent the opinions of Rocna Anchors. We have asked Craig to update his signature to avoid further confusion regarding this.

We don’t at all endorse the way Craig deals with people (we’ve been on the receiving end of it ourselves, we know what it’s like) and to have our own work associated with this approach upsets us hugely.

We haven’t intervened in the past because we’ve felt that as an individual, Craig is entitled to his opinion, and also that he has much to offer with his considerable anchoring experience. Unfortunately, Craig hasn’t been able to offer his opinions in a fair and balanced way, and as a result, people have been annoyed and offended. We can see it’s gone too far – this thread has shown us how truly fed up people are with the constant negativity. We hear you, we agree and we will do what we can to put a stop to it.

(A further note: Some of you who have been in touch with Craig directly have noticed he has a rocna.co.nz email address – we are required to provide this under the terms of our agreement with the Smiths, so Craig will continue to use this address.)


Accusations of deception and a lack of integrity
For all the criticism against Craig, it’s been disappointing to see there have been others in the forum who have been quick to make ill-founded comments, and in some cases, blatant accusations against us with no foundation in fact. We take accusations of lies and deception very seriously.

Much has been made of our use of the results from West Marine’s 2006 tests, and we have been accused of ‘twiddling the data’. This is just not true.

What we have done is focus on the West Marine anchor testing analysis as published by SAIL magazine, and when we updated our website recently, we created our own version of the graph that represents only the ‘Max before releasing’ data. Our reason for doing this? In our opinion, this is the most important measure, as it represents the average force the anchor held before dragging (in other words, effective holding power).

We did not change any of the data or make any adjustments to values, as has been suggested. We reproduced the published graph with identical values in order to match the new look of the website, and we omitted the ‘stable dragging’ and ‘max pull’ data to focus people on what we believe is the most important indicator of performance. That’s all.


Production Quality of the Rocna
There have been many comments made about Rocna’s production in China and doubts expressed about our ability to maintain quality control.

It’s a valid concern when a product is manufactured in China, and we’re happy to address it – we have nothing to hide. In fact, we’ve done a huge amount of work in this area, and we’re incredibly proud of what we’ve achieved.

To start with, we chose our manufacturing facility in China after evaluating facilities in several countries – they were our choice to work with because they were already manufacturing quality goods for both the North American and European markets.

In addition, for several years now we’ve worked closely with RINA (Registro Italiano Navale, an internationally recognized leader in certification and assessment of conformity). This has resulted in our welders being certified to international standards, load testing and seabed testing of the Rocna, as well as certification of production materials used. RINA have also classified the Rocna to Super High Holding Power, the highest level available.

On top of this, we’ve invested heavily into our own quality control program and have an incredibly robust process. Every single anchor is inspected by trained quality control staff at several points during the manufacturing process. This process is managed by Rocna staff based in China to ensure that all anchors live up to our stringent quality requirements. If an anchor is produced that doesn’t do this, it’s rejected.

Rocna’s quality control has never been stronger, and as always, we fully stand behind our product with our lifetime manufacturer’s warranty.


Questions?
We don’t intend to post on the forums on an ongoing basis (we agree with Julian Buesnel from Spade/Blue Water Supplies, who says that forums are for the users and not for the manufacturers). We are always happy though to answer any questions that may pop up in regards to Rocna. For the quickest response, it’s best to contact our customer services team direct on support@rocna.co.nz. If you’d prefer, you’re also welcome to contact me personally on steve@rocna.co.nz (replies may be delayed as I’m often travelling).

Yours sincerely,
Steve Bambury
CEO

 

[CONGO]

GMac, Thank you very much for coming back, I’m not sure we are talking about the same video, never mind you have given me your answer and for the sake of the forum readers I am not going to kick it a round any longer, at the end of the day they will judge it for themselves, part of my beef was good old Mr C said it was a response to Anchor Rights monkey business, maybe that was a Mr C thing, I can except the fact that you may have simply pulled the anchor from the shelf.

I must apologize I was under the understanding that chains and ropes was Grant kings business,not yours, if Peter is a mate of yours then I do not expect you to comment. But it is nice to see you have distanced yourself from Mr C . When you say Rocna is starting to piss YOU off, just who are the owners?

As far as testing anchors, if I could not beat the opposition I would simply would not put them on. There is no better way to market a new anchor design than to test against other designs recognized for their holding power, providing you are comparing apples with apples.

I would like to take the opportunity to explain to you and the readers those boom tests as we call it were very much part of our development after the WEST marine saga, none of our anchors were tested for S/H/H/Power with any of the information from the boom –beam test, as a quick reference to see how we were going the boom was a great way to test our development.

The entire test figures data on our web site came from the T.A.T.S. Rig that was independently operated, there was no need for anyone to interoperate as figures don’t change when independently collected and graphed.

Anchor Right Australia was flogged by three anchor manufactures when we received S/H/H/Power with Robertson’s, simply because of the method used, deploying our T.A.T.S, Rig, other than deploying a tug.

The N.M.S.C. National Marine Safety Committee were also questioned, the end result that I am so proud of is that T.A.T.S has now become a new standard for testing anchors in Australia and has been noted for its accuracy; if our T.A.T.S. Rig is doubted then I say to the 3 manufacturers that harassed us, you are welcome to organize an anchor test with ours included, no holes bard, I will employ Robertson’s testing Authority to man the T.A.T.S. Rig during all testing.

They can with many others and I am sure there would be plenty, stroll along in approx. 1 meter of water watching the whole process, during the testing for S/H/H/Power we attracted such audiences.

And G Mac you are quite right, no anchor is the be all and end all, there will always be the odd bent anchor, drifting and setting time is something that has been marginally reduced, there are better anchors and as far as Anchor Right are concerned we have as good as if not better than the World has to offer.

Regards. Rex. Anchor Right Australia

 

[cliff]

<snip> Unfortunately, Craig hasn’t been able to offer his opinions in a fair and balanced way, and as a result, people have been annoyed and offended. We can see it’s gone too far – this thread has shown us how truly fed up people are with the constant negativity. We hear you, we agree and we will do what we can to put a stop to it .<snip>
Yours sincerely,
Steve Bambury
CEO

IMO It is too late Mr. Bambury, far too late. The damage has been done. I for one (and I am not alone on this apparently) would not even consider purchasing any Rocna product. There are plenty of perfectly good alternatives on the market should I ever need to purchase a new anchor. They will have my consideration, NOT your product. For this decision you can thank Smith Junior and his incessant rants, terminological inexactitudes and mis-information. I wish you every success in muzzling him before he does any more damage to your company's reputation.

 

[idpnd]

Unfortunately, Craig hasn’t been able to offer his opinions in a fair and balanced way, and as a result, people have been annoyed and offended. We can see it’s gone too far – this thread has shown us how truly fed up people are with the constant negativity. We hear you, we agree and we will do what we can to put a stop to it.

Hello Steve,

the Rocna web resources are permeated with negativity and one-sidedness, they actually wound me up before I was even subjected to CG! People seemed particularly offended by the idea that a (recently deceased) competitor's web address was used for an article denigrating all other anchor makes in the most nauseating manner.

Perhaps you want to put a stop to that first.

Regards

 

[Brian@Fortress]

Much has been made of our use of the results from West Marine’s 2006 tests, and we have been accused of ‘twiddling the data’. This is just not true.

What we have done is focus on the West Marine anchor testing analysis as published by SAIL magazine, and when we updated our website recently, we created our own version of the graph that represents only the ‘Max before releasing’ data. Our reason for doing this? In our opinion, this is the most important measure, as it represents the average force the anchor held before dragging (in other words, effective holding power).

We did not change any of the data or make any adjustments to values, as has been suggested. We reproduced the published graph with identical values in order to match the new look of the website, and we omitted the ‘stable dragging’ and ‘max pull’ data to focus people on what we believe is the most important indicator of performance. That’s all.

Steve Bambury
CEO

Steve, Rocna's selective use of the West Marine test data is deceptive and dishonest. We both know that Rocna benefited from a false reading of 5,904 lbs. at one of the test locations, and I included the test notes below in case you needed to be reminded once again.

Rocna has ignored all other test data and charts published in Sail, Yachting Monthly, and Power & Motoryacht magazines which show that Rocna was NOT the top-performing anchor in this test, and that Rocna certainly did NOT have "40% greater holding power than the next best anchor in the test" as you have publicly and falsely claimed.

I have also included below a simple "pull by pull" summary from the West Marine spreadsheet showing the Fortress vs. the Rocna just so we can all be clear on what happened in this test. If you want to continue to publish a slanted version of the results and not the complete test data, then some readers in this forum will say "that's just marketing."

However, since this is safety equipment we are discussing here, I believe a higher level of integrity should be followed rather than bending truth to sell product.

You would be accurate to say that "Rocna was one of the top performing anchors in this test" and be done with the selective opinion & chart nonsense. Anything else is BS.

And as always, anyone who wants the West Marine Excel spreadsheet with the REAL and COMPLETE test results, then just send me a PM and I will e-mail it to you.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Hi Steve,

I’m delighted to see to see that we are now getting a contribution from Rocna; as you say, it is long overdue.

There is no need to trawl over more than 500 postings to explain what has been going on…the sheer volume of postings together with inputs from your competitors, trade customers and sailing customers says it all. Your comments are a welcome first step, but I’m compelled to say that they can only be seen as a tentative, first step; it is now essential that the comments are backed up with action.
I would like to suggest some of the actions which I would like to ask you to consider.

1. Make Craig shut up! Don’t know how; but do it. He may have a “right” to his opinion. He does not have a right to screw up your business.
2. Remove him from the Rocna E mail account. If it is part of a licence agreement then renegotiate that agreement. He has done too much damage for you to allow him to continue. I doubt that the licence gives him free reign to damage your business.
3. Take up the Manson challenge and allow your anchor to be put on their test rig alongside theirs. If you are concerned about fair play get somebody (Gmac perhaps?) to supervise things. Whatever the result, I guarantee that sailors everywhere will respect the fact that you have been prepared to do it and also to be seen to be working with a competitor.
4. Clean up your website. Get rid of the innuendo, the knocking, the patronizing put downs. Nobody expects you to pull the site overnight, but there are some sections which need a radical overhaul. Post something, today, on your home page to say what is happening…and do it!
5. Post copies of your RINA certificates on your website. Other manufacturers do so. No reason for you to not do so.
6. Post the Product Specifications and the User Guide on your site. The Warranty specifically includes them and, unless they are available for customers to see, your Warranty is meaningless.
7. Get rid of that horrible Spade/Rocna link. Viral marketing at its worst which, in any event, takes nobody in.
8. Have a look at the data which Brian has offered (above). Then consider how you can change how you present the YM/Sail figures.
9. I don’t agree that manufacturers should routinely stay off this site. They frequently make contributions and, generally, they are appreciated by all.
However, as a result of everything which has been going on, you are in a uniquely difficult position. Frankly, I believe that it is now essential for you to maintain a presence so that people can see that there is more to your opening post than mere crocodile tears.

That’s my bit. Take it or leave it, as you wish. What I can promise you is that, whilst Craig has been a loose cannon for several years, firing off internet salvoes at all and sundry, nobody is prepared to let it go anymore.
It is time for Rocna to change.

 

[Maine Sail]

However, Craig is not an employee of Rocna Anchors and in no way is he authorised to publicly represent Rocna Anchors. All comments from Craig are solely his own opinions and do not represent the opinions of Rocna Anchors. We have asked Craig to update his signature to avoid further confusion regarding this.


Yours sincerely,
Steve Bambury
CEO

Thanks Steve! Sadly this is a day late and dollar short. Craig has made a mockery of your business and in my personal opinion you guys ought to seriously consider legal action. Even though I love your product I can no longer and will no longer promote the product to friends. The Manson Supreme is less money, despite being built in NZ vs. China, and as far as I am concerned just as strong. Please show us it is not as strong by taking up Manson on the challenge.

Craig now has you in a heap of ****. You really need to take Manson up on their challenge and it is only fair to us Rocna owners to do so. After all you guys allowed him to make "claims" for 7 years about the "poor construction" of the Manson supreme. If it is so poor then you guys should be more than willing to take them up on the challenge.

Like others I too find the twisting of the Sail Magazine test rather sleazy & despicable. The Rocna did not "win" that test and as Brian @ Fortress pointed out your product was not the "winner" and did not have a realistic "40% greater holding power than any other anchor". In fact if you look at "holding power" the Fortress consistently bested the Rocna. I am sure that if Brian is privy to that "behind the scenes data" then you are too. The anchor can stand on its own performance and does not need "fudging" of data or "creative" interpretations of the data.

While it is nice that you came here to try and distance yourself from Craig you now need to back that up by acting like an honest business, which you have certainly not shown this customer that you are. That's right I am a customer and owner of a Rocna and I still find your business practices reprehensible.

Please clean up your act. You have a tremendous product that does not deserve the tarnishing Craig or your company has given it.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Hi all,


We don’t intend to post on the forums on an ongoing basis (we agree with Julian Buesnel from Spade/Blue Water Supplies, who says that forums are for the users and not for the manufacturers). We are always happy though to answer any questions that may pop up in regards to Rocna. For the quickest response, it’s best to contact our customer services team direct on support@rocna.co.nz. If you’d prefer, you’re also welcome to contact me personally on steve@rocna.co.nz (replies may be delayed as I’m often travelling).

Yours sincerely,
Steve Bambury
CEO

Hi Steve.

Yes, perhaps your entry into the fray could have been a little earlier, but that is a matter of personal opinion. Not everybody believes everything they read. People have been trashing their competitors products, lying, exaggerating and misinforming in marketing communications since the first caveman tried to swap his dodgy old loin-cloth for a even dodgier bit of meat.

I bought a Rocna anchor this month. Fitted it to the bow roller last week and am looking forward to using it.

Will it be better than my old Delta? Probably!
Is it better than a Manson? I don't care!
Is it better than a Fortress? I don't care either as I bought one of those as well.

There is a well known saying along the lines of there being no such thing a bad PR. I am sure CS has annoyed a lot of people but on the other hand there are some of us who find the whole thing quite amusing.

 

[CONGO]

Well on another note gentleman we at Anchor Right Australia next week will be endeavoring to find the real difference between stainless steel anchors performance and the Galvanized ones, we have a stainless Super Sarca and a galvanized Super Sarca, no point in monkey business, I think the result will be interesting as we will film the whole process deploying our T.A.T.S Rig and measuring the holding power and performance differences, oh yes there is a difference but no one before has had the equipment to actually measure the difference under a controlled reproducible test. Personly I think you will be surprised.

You will get to learn what a great bit of gear the T.A.T.S. Rig is, just think If we had this on the market when the West Marine testing took place I don’t believe we would be discussing the life and times of Mr, C . As all who entered the big test could have witnessed the whole procedure, and the wife’s could have made cookies and cups of tea?

They say that out of every negative there are positive’s to consider, when the west Marine test took place, of which the aftershocks we are still feeling, that test along Mr. C comments inspired my Son and me to come up with a more reliable method for testing anchors, one that was quantifiable and reproducible and by doing so we now have great anchors with independent test certs to prove it, so maybe in the end something good has come out of it, if you are interested in our little exercise next week let me know and I will post a small DVD.

Steve, you have some work to be done, we are all eyes and ears, there is no doubt that some may find Mr. C rampage as being humorous along with the lack of your intervention. If you are on the receiving end year in year out, jumping into the gutter with him as many of good people on this forum have done, unless you enjoy that sort of thing it is certainly not humorous, we all know a least one that thinks it is, maybe two, we will see if you clean up the web site, what do you say Steve, stop looking in the gutter, through your mate a lifeline, pull him out and shut him up, for Alain and his family drop his old link, I don’t see any humor in that. No point me saying anymore as I think it has all been said.

Regards
Rex.
Anchor Right Australia.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Looking forward to seeing your results Rex.

One question though.

No matter how accurate a rig is, surely there are big differences in one piece of seabed to another? Even if they are close by, there is no guarantee that you are pulling against the same stuff.

Perhaps the statisticians out there can tell us how many pulls would need to be done to get a valid comparison.

 

[CONGO]

Hi Solent boy

You do make a valid point, and you are right there are no guarantees when it comes to testing anchors, the T.A.T.S Rig was deployed by Robertson’s, Robertson’s are not only an anchor testing authority they test many things for not only the marine industry but also lifting and rigging equipment plus many other types of testing. They are Australia wide; if go to our test cert page on our web site www.anchorright.com.au you will find a summary of how they found our Rig.

During our testing for S/H/H/Power we were subject to over month’s and no less than a hundred and fifty pulls, the good thing about this we now have a very good understanding of the consistency of the substrate that we will be pulling them in. The T.A.T.S. Rig not unlike any other new invention had to be proven by Robertson’s before we could get the clearance from the N.M.S.C.( National Marine Safety Committee) to test for S/H/H/Power deploying the T.A.T.S. Rig, you can Google the N.M.S.C. if you want, you will see they are by no means a small organization, I believe they are soon to be a shared responsibilty with AMSA, AMSA is a commercial global marine authority, when this happens our T.A.T.S. Rig will then be recognized worldwide.

What I propose to do if all things work on the day is follow out the tide on a very consistent section of black sandstone and very fine shell, that way we can zoom back over the test area to show and examine the consistency of what we are testing in. I will also pot hole the substance on camera to show the substrate material, experience of knowing the area we are testing like the back of my hand is extremely beneficial; we didn’t have this experience of the test when we first deployed T.A.T.S. This is why we took so long with our testing and why so many pulls were carried out by Robertson’s not by one, but three different officers on various occasions.

Yes there may still be slight variance’s even with my knowledge of the area but the read out from the load cell will soon give you consistency, if the anchors do find an advantage you will spot it on the load cell print out, we used to use large work boats during our earlier development, when you talk about variables there are to many to mention , tide flow, anchor Rhode weight, speed at which the throttle is applied and how much, undulations and the ever varying substrate that you cannot survey to be sure.

Any way we had no joy in getting consistency with these boats, today the skipper would test for us with many pulls, figures from the load cell giving us a reading, the next day same thing many pulls with a whole lot of inconsistency from the day before, it was never ending and extremely frustrating, sure if the skipper hit an undulation it too would show up on the print out but it was the many smaller variables that I have mentioned that you could not detect. So why we cannot say our rig is the be all and end all it sure is a whole lot more precise and fair than a tug boat test.

Anyway way I am sure we will be able to satisfy your queries by giving you explanation and complete trans parity warts and all during our testing.

Regards
Rex.
Anchor Right Australia.

 

[CONGO]

Sorry to hog this space but I have a proposition to put to you all if you are interested, as I have said earlier in the forum we once had a company in the U.K. called Anchor Right U.K. anyway it appears for the short time our anchors were being sold in the U.K. we gained an excellent reputation, some that have been watching this thread have decided to purchase Sarca Excel anchors, at this stage it looks like possibly six No 5 Excels will be sent on a pallet to a contact in the U.K.

I am letting them go as a one of deal at basically cost, I think we could possibly fit about 10 or twelve anchors on a pallet, if you are interested send me an email and I can give you the contact.

Why am I doing it, well why not, we don’t market in the U.K. yet but as I have had so much support from many on the forum to get this monkey off my back, it’s just a way of saying thank you, a No 5 Excel retails in AUD for $ 726.00 my price to you $300.00 AUD, the point I am making is if you can fill the pellet freight cost may surprise you.

At this price there won’t be a warranty, you will just have to trust me when I say you will get an excellent product.
Regards.
Rex.
Anchor Right Australia.

 

[melandnick]

Sorry to hog this space but I have a proposition to put to you all if you are interested, as I have said earlier in the forum we once had a company in the U.K. called Anchor Right U.K. anyway it appears for the short time our anchors were being sold in the U.K. we gained an excellent reputation, some that have been watching this thread have decided to purchase Sarca Excel anchors, at this stage it looks like possibly six No 5 Excels will be sent on a pallet to a contact in the U.K.

I am letting them go as a one of deal at basically cost, I think we could possibly fit about 10 or twelve anchors on a pallet, if you are interested send me an email and I can give you the contact.

Why am I doing it, well why not, we don’t market in the U.K. yet but as I have had so much support from many on the forum to get this monkey off my back, it’s just a way of saying thank you, a No 5 Excel retails in AUD for $ 726.00 my price to you $300.00 AUD, the point I am making is if you can fill the pellet freight cost may surprise you.

At this price there won’t be a warranty, you will just have to trust me when I say you will get an excellent product.
Regards.
Rex.
Anchor Right Australia.

Will bite you hand off for a No4 (16kg) at that price if VAT, import duty is not an issue and freight is not crazy money.
Oh, and I need it within 7 weeks as we are off then!

Nick