Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-02-2014, 08:11 AM   #641
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
Quote from Noelex:
Mantus have upgraded their shank from mild steel to ATSM 514 and even agreed to replace existing shanks.

You have indicated you are going to do a similar change. Upgrading the shank of the Super SARCA from mild steel as it is at the moment to Bisalloy 80 (which is almost identical to ATSM 514).

Have you done this yet?

Can you give us time frame when the Super SARCA will have a hi tensile shank?
End Quote:

Noelex, how many times do you want me to go over this, I was not picking on Greg I was simply stating how he could end his shank strength controversy, he had stated A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK that he was going for Lloyds approval to put it to bed, seems it would be still a good idea.

Do you really want to hear me all over again, mild steel, rubber, plastic, who cares if it passes certification, this proves the products strength, all of our anchor models have been tested and certified, the methods have been witnessed by Lloyds, Survey officers and the like, then used on oil rigs, huge trawlers in the oil fields .Twenty two years of long Gevity must account for something when it comes to reliable anchors.

For the record, all Super sacra anchor shanks are profiled thicker deeper than hi tensile shanks to meet the strength requirements for certification, that is part of the Super Sarcas concept for not just only strength but weight and balance, before we go to hi tensile, and I am in no hurry as we have to redevelop the weight balance concept, when we are ready to change to the High tensile steels they will be thinner. It’s not broken so there is no hurry to fix it. All Excel anchors from No 3 --13 K.G up the shanks are not of bisaloy 8o but bisaloy 400 . A bit stronger than ATSM 514.

Regards Rex.
__________________
Advertisement

Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 08:28 AM   #642
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,369
Ok guys, now some time for honesty. Who has bought a new anchor during the past few weeks based upon the Fortress test and associated 34 pages of discussion.

Not just contemplating a purchase but rushed right out and done it. If yes, what type and weight did you buy and what type and weight was replaced.
__________________

sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 08:34 AM   #643
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,979
Confusing accusations put upon a person "during" performance of tests are just that - accusations.

Any product tester needs to get "all their ducks in a row" before full, concise publication can be issued. IMO: Everyone should let the entire testing sequence be completed, review published results, then make statements regarding feelings/thoughts/suggestions.

At bottom of Noelex posts reads: "Note : I am currently testing a Mantus anchor that has been provided at no charge."

It does not say I have completed my Mantus anchor tests and here are my results.
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 08:37 AM   #644
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Ok guys, now some time for honesty. Who has bought a new anchor during the past few weeks based upon the Fortress test and associated 34 pages of discussion.

Not just contemplating a purchase but rushed right out and done it. If yes, what type and weight did you buy and what type and weight was replaced.
We already have Excel (untested in the trials) and Fortress. Consequently nothing to motivate getting off the deck chair on the foredeck.

I know you specifically did not want me to say - but we did think of buying another Fortress so that we could have one set at 45 degrees and one set at 32 degrees.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 08:45 AM   #645
Guru
 
ranger42c's Avatar
 
City: Maryland
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 42' Sportfish
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post
I know you specifically did not want me to say - but we did think of buying another Fortress so that we could have one set at 45 degrees and one set at 32 degrees.

That is sort of related to the reason we carry ours as a dismantled spare. It's easier in our situation to choose which angle and assemble from scratch, compared to having to dismantle from a given angle to change to the other one.

But mostly in our case, the FX-37 didn't ride very well on the roller in our single-slot-through pulpit. Wish we had two rollers so we could keep two anchors mounted all the time... but I haven't figured out a graceful way to do that. So in the meantime, the Fortress is in stand-by mode.

-Chris
__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay
ranger42c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 08:47 AM   #646
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art View Post
Confusing accusations put upon a person "during" performance of tests are just that - accusations.

Any product tester needs to get "all their ducks in a row" before full, concise publication can be issued. IMO: Everyone should let the entire testing sequence be completed, review published results, then make statements regarding feelings/thoughts/suggestions.

At bottom of Noelex posts reads: "Note : I am currently testing a Mantus anchor that has been provided at no charge."

It does not say I have completed my Mantus anchor tests and here are my results.
If someone publishes when their ducks are all milling about then he should expect people to ask - why are they not all in a row and why are some of them missing?

Most testing I know is completed, and the results thrashed to death before releasing the conclusions. Some tests are released for peer review - this allows comment (some of which might be critical) and ensures that when the results are finalised the results are balanced. I have never been involved in tests where only some results are released, the modus operand not made clear and when queries are made (of omissions or misunderstandings) the testing party suggests they are being maligned.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 09:01 AM   #647
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,903
Anyone here think that Noelex is following hundreds of years of scientific testing procedures???? or got an anchor from a manufacturer...is using it and playing with it and releasing info on a couple internet forums for mostly fun and personal interest?

I'm with Sunchaser in that even high level anchor tests barely get a rise out of me and I'll bet most boaters...Noelex's ongoing threads with random info and great pics are of equal if not greater interest..but still not enough to make me do anything than read and smile at his reasonable efforts...I don't have expectations that his tests will be used by Lloyds...but may cause overall community interest
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 09:31 AM   #648
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelex View Post
Peter asked about how the Mantus was performing. I did not want to sidetrack the thread, but that seems to have happened anyway .

I have not tested the anchor in as many substrates as I would like yet, but the Mantus is proving to be a fantastic anchor. Judge for yourself. This photo was taken at my current anchorage and is just one example of how well the anchor has been setting.

Since your testing is comprised of snorkeling to other anchors, most of which appear to be of fractional size to your 125#, and taking pictures, then taking pictures of your anchor and telling everyone how wonderfully set it is in a sandy bottom, perhaps you could just wrap it all up by saying you love your Mantus, it is a great anchor, shank bending is a feature, not a defect - whatever you like, but just let it go at that and be done with it. Leave the relentless commercial promotion to Cruisers Forum, which seems to relish it.

Surely with all your sailing experience you must have something else to post on? As the only sailboater I know of on a forum dedicated to trawlers no doubt you could provide a unique and unfamiliar perspective on many topics.
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 10:46 PM   #649
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
In a forlorn attempt to get the thread back n track - and yes I'm as guilty as the next:

Not really commented upon in much detail but the Fortress data on the pull of their anchor, FX-37 suggests it was holding, on average, just over 1,800lb. I think the Danforth and Fortress (at 32 degrees) was around 1,200lb and the next rival around 700/800lb and the also rans (or the draggers) down at 100 -400lbs.

Now a constant comment by people who do not like Fortress is that in a change of tide the anchor can catch debris and lock 'upside down' and cannot reset. Yet even at a not very high 1,800lb average the constant comment from on board the Rachel Carson was the difficulty of retrieving the Fortress.

If the anchor was so difficult to retrieve (and I think retrieval loads were not too dissimilar to 'holding' loads) then how or why would the Fortress trip so easily in a change of tide.

Surely it is better to have an anchor that might 'lock' upside down, though given the loads necessary to get it to trip this looks most unlikely, than an anchor that never sets in the first place.

Another comment from on board the Rachel Carson was that many of the anchors, on retrieval, have oyster shells impaled on their toes - an anchor with an oyster shell will not set, reset, so picking up debris is hardly an issue only of the Fortress. (Of course the detractors of the Fortress, or those who use roll bar anchors, studiously ignore the comments from Morgan's Cloud).

I mention that I think 1,800lb is not a high hold, when I say not high - I compare the hold that can be developed by most anchors (of the next size down) in sand where a 15kg/20kg anchor (or the Fortress equivalent, say FX 23) - might develop a hold of 4,000lb. The difference, or the 'low' loads achieved in Chesapeake are indicative of the difficulty of setting in soft mud - and better reflect the success of the more reliable anchors (and the appalling performance of some of the others).

I'm getting boring, anchors are a compromise - no one anchor does everything, but anchors are not only about hold. Its also about do they fit you bow roller, or can you store them, are they proven reliably made, are they easy to buy, are they cheap - there are lots of decisions - though 'hold' ought to be 'up there'.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 11:04 PM   #650
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Noelex-- Not to take this totally off-topic, but to take it totally off-topic, could you tell me what kind of camera you are using for your underwater photos, and what the typical depths are in which you're using it?

If you have provided this information in previous posts or other forums, I'm sorry I missed or overlooked it.

As a film (nowdays HD video) producer/director I'm always interested in this kind of stuff. Your photo quality is very good.

Thanks much,
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 11:12 PM   #651
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Ok guys, now some time for honesty. Who has bought a new anchor during the past few weeks based upon the Fortress test and associated 34 pages of discussion.

Not just contemplating a purchase but rushed right out and done it. If yes, what type and weight did you buy and what type and weight was replaced.

I have. Acting on everything we've read here, we have purchased twelve used Caterpillar D-10s and had them buried deeply in the bottoms of the anchorages we like to use in the San Juan and Gulf Islands. Attached to each buried D-10 is a 1" chain which in turn is attached to a six-foot diameter float with a heavy ring on top.

While we have retained the Rocna on our pulpit, it is there simply to give the pulpit a "finished" look. We still have our Fortress FX-23 on the swim step to continue its stellar service as our stern anchor when needed, and also to use in case we come across some Chesapeake Bay mud in our travels.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 11:22 PM   #652
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: 10,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
I have. Acting on everything we've read here, we have purchased twelve used Caterpillar D-10s and had them buried deeply in the bottoms of the anchorages ...
Please do the same here.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 11:36 PM   #653
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
I have. Acting on everything we've read here, we have purchased twelve used Caterpillar D-10s and had them buried deeply in the bottoms of the anchorages..
Careful underwater inspection should reveal the defect in the track design of the D10 which compromises the holding power. Use these at your own risk.
__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2014, 11:37 PM   #654
Guru
 
N4712's Avatar
 
City: South FL
Country: U.S.A
Vessel Name: Oliver
Vessel Model: Nordhavn 47 Hull# 12
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
I have. Acting on everything we've read here, we have purchased twelve used Caterpillar D-10s and had them buried deeply in the bottoms of the anchorages we like to use in the San Juan and Gulf Islands.


D-10's? Please. We all know 1100's are the correct anchors, with the new gen hoop boom and with it's high volume fill bucket!
Click image for larger version

Name:	ImageUploadedByTrawler Forum1412307197.847935.jpg
Views:	80
Size:	49.9 KB
ID:	33334
Click image for larger version

Name:	ImageUploadedByTrawler Forum1412307084.738938.jpg
Views:	80
Size:	81.4 KB
ID:	33333
As presented above D-10's do not set very well (It's actually a d-8).
You need Mack Power!
Click image for larger version

Name:	ImageUploadedByTrawler Forum1412307299.674682.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	121.1 KB
ID:	33335
Hey even haul packs work...
Click image for larger version

Name:	ImageUploadedByTrawler Forum1412307429.695088.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	40.4 KB
ID:	33336
__________________
Thanks, Oliver
M/V Oliver
Nordhavn 47 Hull #12
N4712 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2014, 12:26 AM   #655
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelex View Post
...This photo was taken at my current anchorage and is just one example of how well the anchor has been setting....




This photo Noelex posted seems to show tell tale track marks of a D10, even before Marin advocated their use in mooring.
__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2014, 01:56 AM   #656
Veteran Member
 
City: Wherever the boat is
Country: Europe
Vessel Model: 48 foot sailing Yacht
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 92
Thanks Marin

I am using an Olympus TG2. The camera is waterproof to 18m, but my wife and I go diving several times a day in summer so I also use an Olympus underwater housing, which provides extra protection.
It has been a good camera and is also great for general photos around the boat.

The anchors are usually in about 5-12m (12-40 feet).

I should note that a lot of the photos have been taken by my wife. We often dive together and swap the camera over with each duck dive so it is difficult to be sure who has taken what (the good shots are probably hers).

Independent magazine anchor tests together with user reports from people that have owned anchors have been our only tools for assessing anchor performance.

I think observing what happens underwater in real anchorages, how easily and quickly anchors set, how they rotate around to a new wind direction, whether they hold or slowly drag backwards in strong wind etc are good supplemental tools for assessing which are the better anchors.

I have been doing this for many years, but photographs provide a means of sharing this information. The explosion in the availability of waterproof action cameras means that many people have access to suitable cameras and my hope is that we will see many more underwater photos on the forums.

If anyone wants any tips on underwater anchor photography I am happy to answer any questions.
Attached Images
 
Noelex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2014, 02:04 AM   #657
Guru
 
Northern Spy's Avatar
 
City: Powell River, BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Northern Spy
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 26
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Spy View Post
Sometimes you have to invent your own problems to solve...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
In all the posts on this thread, this is the smartest, most intelligent, most meaningful, most insightful, and most accurate one of the bunch.
Even a blind squirrel is right twice a day.

Or something like that.
Northern Spy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2014, 04:57 AM   #658
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Noelex,

As you are here.

I'm feeling a bit inadequate.

I had seen the 'countdown' on the Rocna website for the 'sneak peaks' of the new Rocna but days slipped away and there was no news (in fact it might have started to get a bit embarrassing for them). The only slip was an image on IBI taken in Vancouver of someone lifting a test anchor on a flashy MoBo, way back in July.

So all went quiet, or it did until you posted simultaneously on a number of websites.

I then checked the Rocna website - no mention there, only you.

This was all a bit strange. The PR release was on the 19th September but there was no reaction at all - not a single person that I am aware of thought it worth mentioning. And then someone living on a yacht in Greece suddenly is the only person to take note and took it unpin themselves to offer the service that CMP or Rocna were denying the wider public.

I have to ask - how on earth did you find the PR connection, its way down on Google listing, in fact so low I did not find it. Even now if you google 'new rocna' the only hit are your releases (not the PR company) - congratulations.

You take excellent images underwater and you have access to information denied to all of us and you have such a way with words - as I said I'm feeling most inadequate.

With your record you could take on the PR role for CMP (certainly more reaction than the company they chose), though how that fits with your testing of the Mantus is something of a conundrum - maybe the connection is the roll bar and the concave fluke.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2014, 10:49 AM   #659
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post
Noelex,

As you are here.

I'm feeling a bit inadequate.

I had seen the 'countdown' on the Rocna website for the 'sneak peaks' of the new Rocna but days slipped away and there was no news (in fact it might have started to get a bit embarrassing for them). The only slip was an image on IBI taken in Vancouver of someone lifting a test anchor on a flashy MoBo, way back in July.

So all went quiet, or it did until you posted simultaneously on a number of websites.

I then checked the Rocna website - no mention there, only you.

This was all a bit strange. The PR release was on the 19th September but there was no reaction at all - not a single person that I am aware of thought it worth mentioning. And then someone living on a yacht in Greece suddenly is the only person to take note and took it unpin themselves to offer the service that CMP or Rocna were denying the wider public.

I have to ask - how on earth did you find the PR connection, its way down on Google listing, in fact so low I did not find it. Even now if you google 'new rocna' the only hit are your releases (not the PR company) - congratulations.

You take excellent images underwater and you have access to information denied to all of us and you have such a way with words - as I said I'm feeling most inadequate.

With your record you could take on the PR role for CMP (certainly more reaction than the company they chose), though how that fits with your testing of the Mantus is something of a conundrum - maybe the connection is the roll bar and the concave fluke.
Perhaps Canada Metals, having purchased Rocna, will add the Mantus to their stable of products? Since the Rocna has now been identified as having serious enough problems that a new hoopless style is needed with the new Rocna design that overcomes the obvious deficiencies of the hoop style, such a purchase would give CMP the most photogenic hoop anchor ever made plus the new Rocna that overcomes its deficiencies! I should be in the M&A field as this would be a marriage made in heaven!
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2014, 12:53 PM   #660
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
Since the Rocna has now been identified as having serious enough problems that a new hoopless style is needed with the new Rocna design that overcomes the obvious deficiencies of the hoop style...
I think your strong bias against Rocna and rollbar anchors in general is coloring your view of things a bit. The only "problem" with a rollbar anchor is that it doesn't fit on a large number of pulpits.

Given the very large and growing number of boaters using rollbar anchors all over the world with outstanding results, it would appear that the so-called "problems" with rollbar anchors are only in the minds of those who don't have them. And apparently, nobody has thought to tell the anchors themselves that they have "problems" because they continue to rack up an enviable record of performance in recreational and commercial service all over the planet.
__________________

Marin 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 01:41 AM.


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