Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-28-2014, 10:59 PM   #561
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopCar View Post
Rex, I wish I was in a position to be your US distributor. I think your anchors would sell.

I think it would be a no brainer for Imtra Corporation. They already import Muir Windlasses from Oz, have the warehouse facilities and are already established as a distributor in the USA.
Considering the lamentable Aussie costs of production and shipping distances I`m amazed Muir markets competitively in USA, they have trouble doing it here. But they are quality,they provide back up service, and within reason, quality & reliability can beat price. My Muir Cheetah (with its new 1200w motor) and my Super Sarca get along fine.
__________________
Advertisement

__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2014, 11:35 PM   #562
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,702
While we were talk'in Rocnas and alloy the Susan Gael got some very traditional steel anchors mounted in her nostrils.

The Claw looks like a Bruce to me and the Danforth is a bit interesting in the way it's put together. And the pads have a steeper angle than most.

But the Skipper seems unmoved by high tech. He could be using the Danforth as primary and the Bruce when it's rocky. Or he could be using the Bruce as primary and the Danforth when it blows. ??
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCF1637 copy.jpg
Views:	46
Size:	99.5 KB
ID:	33237  
__________________

__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 02:21 AM   #563
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,669
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Ranger42...I think you've got it, when you said..


"I wonder if a concave design eventually collects enough weight toward the back of the fluke such that the tip no longer points downward..... so the direction of pull becomes more or less horizontal from that point on?
Whereas a convex surface maybe never collects enough weight toward the back so that the tip always still points downward... and the direction of pull continues to dig deeper?"


Exactly. The so-called streamlined shape of the convex fluke, which in essence is not a plough shape, but more like one side/half of an arrow head split longitudinally, parts the substrate, and the net vector forces are such as to drive it deeper, something only really possible because of the material shedding shape. Concavity would just result in it filling up, then at that point, max holding power and depth is largely reached, (quite considerable, I might add), but if it's holding power is exceeded, all it can do is pop out, or hopefully perform a controlled drag digging a deep trough in the sea bottom. The convex fluke can continue to go down deeper, and if it then dragged, it is a controlled drag, with the substrate filling in over and behind it. Only when being pulled vertically, as in retrieval, will it then shed the material more easily than concave, and come up cleaner.
The above is my personal experience with a Super Sarca.
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 10:28 AM   #564
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Just posted on boats.com. Author Gary Reich also writes for PassageMaker and his story should be in their next issue as well

Anchor Throw-Down: Fortress Anchor Tests 11 Popular Hooks - Articles - boats.com
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 10:48 AM   #565
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,702
Peter B,
Sounds like you're over think'in this concave/convex (CC)issue on a defensive level I suspect.

The CC question is simply a question of what shape resists fwd motion through a fluid. Didn't the Spade designer research this thoroughly and establish it as fact that the concave shape was best? Correct me if I'm wrong but I consider that a given.

It was also considered a given that a heavier anchor works better but the Fortress and even the Danforth designed in 1938 shows that there are other elements of a design of anchors that trump weight.

The concave fluke has greater resistance as the Rocna and Supreme may show but given the choice I'd take the Super Sarca for an anchor as it's setting and short scope performance is better not to mention it's apparent greater seabed flexibility.

Re your analysis of the CC issue since the concave resists fwd motion better (that is largely vertical re an anchor) it would seem the concave would be more resistant to rising up in the seabed and that should result in deeper penetration. But as I've said there's more to anchor design than optimizing fluke efficiency. The Frenchman's Spade fluke looks to be optimized for efficiency but there are quite a few anchors that can out perform the Spade.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 02:42 PM   #566
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,702
Ranger42C wrote;

"Without regard to cleanliness...

I wonder if a concave design eventually collects enough weight toward the back of the fluke such that the tip no longer points downward... so the direction of pull becomes more or less horizontal from that point on?

Whereas a convex surface maybe never collects enough weight toward the back so that the tip always still points downward... and the direction of pull continues to dig deeper?

Not arguing, simply thinking (typing) out loud, as it were."


Interesting theory.
Seems to me the fluke would collect material (weight) aft ... the amount being about equal to the area of the fluke. Since the area of most flukes is smaller toward the tip (forward) there should be less buildup. But I think the anchor designer must locate the shank on the anchor in a balanced way to control pitch attitude.

During the initial set the tip receives more weight and helps pitch down. But as the anchor moves fwd and down material becomes more balanced as planned by the anchor designer. Interestingly the Rocna has a short up-turn to the trailing edge of the fluke like an aircraft elevator. This would presumably concentrate the collection of material in the aft end of the fluke tending to pitch the anchor up. And also to aid in the compaction or interplane drag theory. I think it's possible this could contribute (or be the cause) of the poor short scope performance. The Supreme has no such feature and has Supreme short scope performance. Couldn't resist the pun.

But when fully buried the down force on the fluke should be balanced re where the area of the fluke is distributed fore and aft.

Another thing that occurs to me re material concentrated aft on the fluke is that before the anchor is buried but when the fluke is fully engaged is that the material at and on top of the trailing edge of the fluke can pile up above the seabed surface. The material on top of the tip cannot because the seabed material on top of it holds it down as it dosn't have anywhere to go. So as a result of unbalanced fluke loading the anchor would likely pitch down. This temporary un-balance may be of great benefit to many anchors.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 03:26 PM   #567
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortress Anchors View Post
Just posted on boats.com. Author Gary Reich also writes for PassageMaker and his story should be in their next issue as well

Anchor Throw-Down: Fortress Anchor Tests 11 Popular Hooks - Articles - boats.com
I have said it before and now reconfirm after reading the Throw-Down test, An advertising stunt. Certainly the people at Fortress, who specified the very narrow test nature, knew before the test that Danforth anchors ,especially with 45 degree fluke sets, would stand out in soft mud and that many other brands would do poorly. If this were meant to be an anchor test of any significance it would need to include multiple bottom types and variations relative to real world anchoring. Practical Sailor Magazine has been preforming ongoing anchor testing for years. The results of those tests do not show the Fortress in a bad light, but do point out that there are other New-Gen anchors that do well as all around performers. My best guess is that the recent growing trend in anchor purchases moving toward New-Gen spade types has alarmed the people at Fortress and any close look at boating magazines regarding what's on the bows of boats will confirm that trend. Look at what's on my bow. It is not perfect but it has so far shown itself to be an all around good performer even in soft mud.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 03:33 PM   #568
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post
If the roll bar contributed to setting, after the anchor......What a load of rubbish some people suggest
The rollbar doesn't contribute to setting, it contributes to the fluke penetrating into the bottom so the anchor can then set.

The principle and operation of the rollboar anchor are so obvious and so simple that even a caveman could understand it. But I'm beginning to see that a surprisingly large number of participants on this thread apparently don't, in fact, understand it despite their claims that they do.

The videos I have seen showing rollbar anchors digging in out of sight into the bottom would tend to contradict the armchair theoriies being thrown around here that the rollbar prevents the anchor from really digging in.

But videos can't be believed, right?

Every time we use our rollbar anchor we have to break it out with the boat. And when it comes up, the hollow rollbar is always packed tight with bottom material, so much so I have to blast it out with a hose when we get home.

This would indicate that the rollbar was taken a fair distance into the bottom if not all the way into it.

Reality trumps theory every time. Rather than armchair theories like those being bandied about in this thread about how an anchor will behave based on how it looks, we sought out experiences related by boaters who had been using a particular type of anchor in real-life situations all over the planet. There were a fair number of them even back then, although it took a bit of effort to search them out.

For example: Eric-- have you changed your fleet of charter boats in the Mediterranean from the conventional anchors they were equipped with to rollbar anchors and had the anchoring problems your customers experienced go from a lot to almost none?

No?

I didn't think so. But the largest charter operator in the Med did, and this was many years ago when rollbar anchors were fairly new to the market.

Sure, there are instances of rollbar anchor users experiencing dragging or other problems. That's to be expected, given the almost infinite number of variables in the anchoring process.

But the armchair theories and assumptions that have filled this thread--- not just about rollbar anchors but all different types--- are really something to read. Entertaining? Certainly. Credible? Absolutely not.

In addition to our own experience, we stake the security of our boat at anchor on the real-life experiences of boaters who have actully used the type of anchor we have for a long, long time in a whole lot of situations. If a bunch of these people had been experiencing the kinds of problems that have been theorized and conjectured about in this thread, we never would have bought the anchor.

But guess what? Nobody was.

There are people participating in this thread who I suspect are, for whatever reason, really pissed off at the success of the rollbar anchor. And there are people who, I am becoming convinced, simply don't know how it works despite their claims otherwise.

But none of them appear to have had years of real-life experience with this anchor. I don't mean dragging one around on a 2:1 scope or theorizing how this or that little bend in the metal will react with the mud the anchor is oozing through at a snail's pace. I mean using one for years-- don't forget, these things have been around in one form or another for a long time now--- in actual boating conditions: different bottoms, different winds, different currents, etc.

Those are the folks worth paying attention to. The rest of it's just fluff.


PS-- While I wrote the above with regards to the rollbar anchor, it also applies to any anchor the armchair crowd is theorizing about, be it the Fortress (another great anchor), Rex's anchor, or any other. Reality trumps theory every time.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 07:41 PM   #569
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,702
Marin this is an armchair discussion so I'm not concerned about being "credible" but I'm glad I've scored at the entertainment level. I was just hoping someone was reading my home baked ideas.

What is it about the roll bar that you don't think we understand? But I think I understand it better than you and of course you think I don't understand it and I'm a sub-cave man. That's a bit of a low blow but what can I do about it? I just had my hair cut .. fairly short too.

It seems Rocna's new anchor isn't a roll bar. Looks more like a Spade than anything else. I wonder why they dumped the RB?
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 08:20 PM   #570
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyschulman View Post
My best guess is that the recent growing trend in anchor purchases moving toward New-Gen spade types has alarmed the people at Fortress and any close look at boating magazines regarding what's on the bows of boats will confirm that trend. Look at what's on my bow. It is not perfect but it has so far shown itself to be an all around good performer even in soft mud.
I appreciate your input, but no, we are not alarmed. For a large part of our business, we are not competing for the same customers, as they have virtually no penetration into the small boat market, nor will they ever due to their pricing.

Additionally, we have a niche product with features and benefits they simply cannot offer.

Old generation anchors such as the Bruce (or Claw), CQR, Danforth and copies (particularly in overseas markets) still have a huge market share advantage, and the new generation models are all competing for a very small slice of the pie.

Lewmar, manufacturers of the Claw, CQR, and Delta, probably sell more anchors than all of the new generation anchor manufacturers combined in the USA and world market. Maybe even 2-3x. Lewmar certainly has vastly superior distribution.

Regarding the soft mud testing, I guess you have to identify what constitutes being a "good performer." If you are referring to the Ultra, it did have a couple of good spikes during the testing of over 1,000 lbs, but then it broke free immediately afterwards and never reset.

All of its pulls ended at less than 900 lbs (what is needed to hold a 35-ft boat in 30 knots of wind per ABYC table) and 4 of 5 pulls ended at less than 600 lbs.
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 08:32 PM   #571
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,251
Could use the "next size up" but haven't yet the need.

__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 09:13 PM   #572
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,702
Brian that was very enlightening about the anchor market.

That puts those of us w new gen anchors in the same category as Lexus and Jaguar owners. Don't tell anybody that I drive a VW.

I knew old school anchors were very much a majority of anchors on/in boats. But I had no idea that edge carried over into manufacturing. And I'm part of it. I just recently bought a new Claw .. Lewmar by the way and that fits neatly into your remarks.

Again thanks for the 20/20 report. Anything similar you wish to share?
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 09:34 PM   #573
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
I would second the comment from Fortress. The current sales of 'new gen' anchors is tiny in the grand scheme of things and the disciples suggesting their new gen anchor is better than another new gen anchor - completely miss the point. Most people blindfold cannot tell the difference when set in 'sand' and most people only anchor in 'sand'. its those peripheral seabeds where the differences emerge - and most people simply do not go there. Those who anchor in mud vote with their feet, and already use a Fortress or Danforth, those who anchor in weed use a Marsh or fisherman's - its those of us who anchor everywhere who need a cross section.

And anchors are a compromise - there is no one anchor that suits all seabeds and Fortress have updated the information (showing that many 'new gen' anchors are actually not as good as 'old gen' in thin mud). Fortress have an advantage - not only good in mud but good in sand.

The big market for any anchor is 'attacking' the old ten market - which is huge.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 09:51 PM   #574
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,360
The biggest obstacle the new gen anchors face is the success of the "old style" anchors oh so many of us have hanging from our bows. Maybe paraphrasing Marin, but if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I freely admit I have as a spare, a Fortress - never used.
sunchaser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 09:51 PM   #575
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortress Anchors View Post
I appreciate your input, but no, we are not alarmed. For a large part of our business, we are not competing for the same customers, as they have virtually no penetration into the small boat market, nor will they ever due to their pricing.

Additionally, we have a niche product with features and benefits they simply cannot offer.

Old generation anchors such as the Bruce (or Claw), CQR, Danforth and copies (particularly in overseas markets) still have a huge market share advantage, and the new generation models are all competing for a very small slice of the pie.

Lewmar, manufacturers of the Claw, CQR, and Delta, probably sell more anchors than all of the new generation anchor manufacturers combined in the USA and world market. Maybe even 2-3x. Lewmar certainly has vastly superior distribution.

Regarding the soft mud testing, I guess you have to identify what constitutes being a "good performer." If you are referring to the Ultra, it did have a couple of good spikes during the testing of over 1,000 lbs, but then it broke free immediately afterwards and never reset.

All of its pulls ended at less than 900 lbs (what is needed to hold a 35-ft boat in 30 knots of wind per ABYC table) and 4 of 5 pulls ended at less than 600 lbs.
Well that marketing information does help explain why I am seeing so few fortress-Danforth type anchors on bows. I am looking mainly at trawlers and medium to larger boats. Come to think of it when I inspect older and smaller boats that is where I see the Danforth and other price driven anchors . Concerning the inability of the ultra or any of the other anchors that did not shine in soft mud; does that make them poor anchors? Since the narrow nature of the Fortress test does not address other bottoms and conditions we do not know if the fortress would fail in hard mud-weed gravel etcetera. The only way to pick out the best all around performer is to do a better designed test. The Fortress test is too narrow and it asks a question the answer to which was known before the test. Danforth type anchors do well in soft mud others do not. Therefore to me more marketing than science.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2014, 10:05 PM   #576
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyschulman View Post
Well that marketing information does help explain why I am seeing so few fortress-Danforth type anchors on bows. I am looking mainly at trawlers and medium to larger boats. Come to think of it when I inspect older and smaller boats that is where I see the Danforth and other price driven anchors . Concerning the inability of the ultra or any of the other anchors that did not shine in soft mud; does that make them poor anchors? Since the narrow nature of the Fortress test does not address other bottoms and conditions we do not know if the fortress would fail in hard mud-weed gravel etcetera. The only way to pick out the best all around performer is to do a better designed test. The Fortress test is too narrow and it asks a question the answer to which was known before the test. Danforth type anchors do well in soft mud others do not. Therefore to me more marketing than science.
Ed

Has your anchor let you down yet? Lord knows you are out there using it so an objective point or two from you may be a good supplement to the referenced anchor test.
sunchaser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 12:15 AM   #577
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Ed

Has your anchor let you down yet? Lord knows you are out there using it so an objective point or two from you may be a good supplement to the referenced anchor test.
In two Summers of North West cruising my present New Gen anchor has never failed to set first time and hold firm. Truth be told I can say that about a few anchors I have owned including two Spades and a Manson. Have I had anchor failures? As much as I have anchored over more than 50 years the answer is yes. They were rare. Two I can remember involved a 180 degree veer with a Danforth and a drag in Chesapeake mud with a Bruce. There have been a few times in the past where my choice of anchor site was poor ( rock bottom)and that became apparent on setting but that has not happened yet with my new anchor.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 12:29 AM   #578
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post
I would second the comment from Fortress. The current sales of 'new gen' anchors is tiny in the grand scheme of things and the disciples suggesting their new gen anchor is better than another new gen anchor - completely miss the point. Most people blindfold cannot tell the difference when set in 'sand' and most people only anchor in 'sand'. its those peripheral seabeds where the differences emerge - and most people simply do not go there. Those who anchor in mud vote with their feet, and already use a Fortress or Danforth, those who anchor in weed use a Marsh or fisherman's - its those of us who anchor everywhere who need a cross section.

And anchors are a compromise - there is no one anchor that suits all seabeds and Fortress have updated the information (showing that many 'new gen' anchors are actually not as good as 'old gen' in thin mud). Fortress have an advantage - not only good in mud but good in sand.

The big market for any anchor is 'attacking' the old ten market - which is huge.
Just a minor correction to the statement about most people anchoring in sand. When I did my boating on east coat and VI that could be pretty much true. Now that I boat in the north west along with a lot of other boaters I can tell you we hardly ever see sand on our anchors or on a beach. What we have is variations and mixes of mud-shale-gravel and lots of rock. A Danforth type would not be my first choice for many of the harder bottom types where I boat.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 12:33 AM   #579
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
...
I freely admit I have as a spare, a Fortress - never used.
Ditto.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2014, 12:46 AM   #580
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
The biggest obstacle the new gen anchors face is the success of the "old style" anchors oh so many of us have hanging from our bows. Maybe paraphrasing Marin, but if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I freely admit I have as a spare, a Fortress - never used.
I also carry an aluminum spare used only once this past year a spade its what I had left over from my last boat. If I had to buy new I might have gone with a Fortress it folds tighter and easier to store.
__________________

eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012