Mantus "digger" anchor

[Delfin]

One of my good friend who is an very experienced mariner ( and when I say very I mean really very experienced ) told me one day that the anchor does not matter so much but what is important is the size, length and weight of the chain you put down there. Any comment on this?

Bingo. Design certainly matters when comparing hooks of equal weight, and in that department an anchor designed to bury itself will be better than one that can't. Gravity works under water as well as on land, so the heavier hook designed to dive into the seabed will come out on top, all else being equal. And, it seems to me that diving ability is more important than weight when comparing anchors of different design, which is why the coast guard carries a Fortress on its cutters up here. The Coasties had to cut a Fortress loose off San Juan island and abandon it after it buried itself to deep to retrieve.

So, IMHO, I'll take the heaviest hook I can fit that is designed to disappear under the seabed as the best option. Ultra, Vulcan, Excell - these all seem to fit the bill, at least in my eyes.

 

[Nomad Willy]

One of my gojod friend who is an very experienced mariner ( and when I say very I mean really very experienced ) told me one day that the anchor does not matter so much but what is important is the size, length and weight of the chain you put down there. Any comment on this?

It’s all about weight. Weight of your ground tackle and how it’s allocated to the different parts of the ground tackle.

Most see it as a question of what anchor to buy and how big. Then they see lots of chain as safe and good so they plan on that. But then they see old salts on TF saying one should have no line at all .. just chain.

But nobody talks about balance. How much is necessary of each component of the ground tackle. Some think of the lifting gear or winch as part of the GT.

There’s numerous recomendations on numerous books and forums and not all agree. I usually quote Chapman’s book as a standard. It’s viewed as being the bible of boating information. The Chapman book varies over the years from “a few feet” of chain to a bit more but not over a boat length .. as I recall.

For really big boats like Delfin introducing nylon line into the rode would be inconvenient at least. I don’t even know if they make winches for combo rodes for boats that big.

To start looking for and deciding what ground tackle to get for a typical trawler one should decide how much weight they can safely carry on their bow w/o negatively affecting the boat’s Seaworthiness. So I’m saying one should start contemplating ground tackle buy considering the weight of the total system and then the weight percentage of all the components individually. Balance.

 

[FF]

I consider anchors to be like windshield wiper blades , eventually disposable.

Eventually even with a proper trip line an anchor can be lost, so prepare for it with a backup or two.

I find "bigger IS better" so with a hyd capstan chose either 60H Danforth , or 60lb CQR with 4-5 ft of heavy chain and all nylon rode.

This has worked on the AICW, the loop and multiple trips to the Carib .

Have not lost one YET! , but came close .

The joy is these antiques can be found for a buck or two a pound , so loosing one or even two would only require digging out a spare.

To me anchors are a tool, not a religion .

 

[Nomad Willy]

FF,
I’m not usually accused of having religion.
That’s very much the way I do it. I can afford to loose an anchor or two w/o any tears.

But if one uses old anchors that don’t have HHP ‘bigger is better” is basically necessary. I’ve seen a big CQR hold a big sailboat in a 50 knot gale. And a good Danforth type has good HP but the cheapies aren’t worth using. So that varies. A lot. But spending the money for a “big hydraulic capstan” means you’re passing up the opportunity to have a small HHP anchor that could be pulled w a small electric capstan or by hand.
Interesting that both have the same results .. haha.

Have you got any tricks to get your CQR to set?

I see Steve (as in SteveandZoila(the OP)) posted and fled. I was very curious to see his sorce. I suspect it was Mantus. I’ve seen them posting propaganda before. Perhaps this will roast him out.

 

[Delfin]

FF,
I’m not usually accused of having religion.
That’s very much the way I do it. I can afford to loose an anchor or two w/o any tears.

But if one uses old anchors that don’t have HHP ‘bigger is better” is basically necessary. I’ve seen a big CQR hold a big sailboat in a 50 knot gale. And a good Danforth type has good HP but the cheapies aren’t worth using. So that varies. A lot. But spending the money for a “big hydraulic capstan” means you’re passing up the opportunity to have a small HHP anchor that could be pulled w a small electric capstan or by hand.
Interesting that both have the same results .. haha.

Have you got any tricks to get your CQR to set?

I see Steve (as in SteveandZoila(the OP)) posted and fled. I was very curious to see his sorce. I suspect it was Mantus. I’ve seen them posting propaganda before. Perhaps this will roast him out.

Lighter weight anchors can hold just as well as heavier ones, if you can get them to set. Since they are lighter, that can be more difficult, depending on the bottom conditions. Danforth designs come out on top when the bottom is more easily penetrated, and if you take your time setting them, are generally outstanding. But day in and day out, more weight is better than less weight, and a diving anchor that has weight is best of all, IMO. Which is why I'm not a fan of roll bar anchors. Not that they can't be great holding hooks, but the roll bar prevents them from being greater, because it prevents them from burying themselves in most sea beds, especially the ones in the Northwest. The reality is that 99% of the time, the loads on any set of anchor gear are so trivial that most people think their anchors are "the best", and you can find some anchor study someplace that proves that any one of 20 different anchors is superior. And each one may well be in the weight and conditions tested, but the variables are so many that when you see studies that draw radically different conclusions you have to think that either the study is flawed or the variables too great to draw specific conclusions. Which is why anchor threads tend to be mostly rhetorical tail chasing.

 

[MurrayM]

...Which is why anchor threads tend to be mostly rhetorical tail chasing.

That's why it's a perfect Internet forum subject

 

[Delfin]

That's why it's a perfect Internet forum subject

Absolutely correct! Now let's talk about guns....

 

[MurrayM]

Absolutely correct! Now let's talk about guns....

I have no need for one. Why do you?

 

[Nomad Willy]

TomandJeri,
You’ve opened up an undiscussed area of anchoring. Fluke angle v/s performance.

Undiscussed, that is, relative to all anchors. I think every anchor has it’s best fluke angle (FA) for holding in various bottoms. It could be that other anchor manufacturers copy the Danforth norm of 32 degrees because it works and it would take a colossal amount of research to deviate from the Dan 32.
However anchors w large FA like a Dan may be best at a lower angle than anchors like a Navy. The Navy having a very small FA would likely hav a very different fluke loading and perform better w a different FA. I have observed that Claws vary quite a bit in their FA as well as the aspect ratio of “sub flukes”. The pointy end of a Lewmar Claw (especially the two side flukes) is tapered and fairly long and narrow compared to other Claws. The most different of all Claws (Manson Ray) is almost bear paw like at the ends of the outboard flukes.
But the FA is subject to not only bottom type but anchor design. And relative to FF’s and Delfin’s comments on anchor weight that too I’m quite sure affects optimal FA.

 

[TomandJeri]

TomandJeri,
You’ve opened up an undiscussed area of anchoring. Fluke angle v/s performance.

Oops. I deleted my post. Thought it was too much war story, not enough objectivity. But I was responding to this . . .

For openers what kind of bottom was the test staged on/in?

. . . and concluded that I thought they were tested in mud. Performance at 32 deg. was almost exactly the same as the Danforth, but significantly improved at 45 deg, which is the 'mud' setting for the Fortress. And that's been my experience with a Fortress, anchoring in both types of bottom up here, with mediocre performance in the two bottom types using the 'wrong' setting. In fact, it wouldn't really set in hard sand using the mud angle, and would pop out and try to reset again, never really setting. And the sand angle in mud would set shallow and just drag. Or so it seemed from on deck.

 

[Nomad Willy]

TomandJerri,
Yes it clearly happened in a soft bottom.
Could have been Fortress (not likely IMO) or even Ultra. Bur I don’t recall Ultra in any test. Also the weights are expressed in kg and that suggests that it was outside the US. Also Rocna being at the bottom of the list suggests it’s Mantus. They have made fun of Rocna in the past.

The fact that several anchors have adjustable flukes but not that many (and even fewer are big time sellers) indicates to me that the anchor industry feels only a few would take advantage of the feature. And that few feel the adjustable fluke is’nt much of an advantage. It costs extra money to offer and buy. Most products manufactured are price driven. So there probably is more advantages to fluke adjustment than the availability of the feature suggests.
But the way I’ve always seen it is since most of the time cruising one dosn’t know what the bottom is like adjustability is a lot of extra trouble for very questionable results. That could change if a 50 knot gale was forecast and one needed to optimize. I do it the old way having a dedicated storm anchor.

 

[BruceK]

Outfitting new build GHTT35. Does anyone have direct experience with Mantus anchor? Online reviews have been very favorable, but I'd be interested in hearing from someone with firsthand experience.
Thanks

Here`s the OP`s post which initiated the thread. A perfectly reasonable line of inquiry. I hope he feels he`s been helped.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Bruce,
For the OP re the Mantus question I have found the tests on that brand in Steve G’s “Anchor Setting Videos”. The thread can be easily found on page 2 by the 601 responses listed.
The Mantus testing begins on page 6. There are six Mantus test videos.

There are Super Sarca tests on pg 12, 13 and 14.

 

[Steve Bedford]

TomandJerri,
The fact that several anchors have adjustable flukes but not that many (and even fewer are big time sellers) indicates to me that the anchor industry feels only a few would take advantage of the feature. And that few feel the adjustable fluke is’nt much of an advantage. It costs extra money to offer and buy. Most products manufactured are price driven. So there probably is more advantages to fluke adjustment than the availability of the feature suggests.

Eric,
You are correct about the limited number of manufacturers making adjustable anchors (either flukes like Fortress or shanks like Super MAX). And you are correct about the added cost to manufacture an adjustable anchor. The Super MAX Pivoting Arm Anchor has three adjustment angles but most owners of this model admit they pretty much leave the angle in the middle position. They change to the other when they are sure the seabed requires a different setting. Often they are not completely aware of the exact composition of the seabed.
Steve

 

[TONTOROSS]

I have a Rocna. The Mantus looks, well, cheap with the bolt assembly....

Tom, you're just holding on to your money. Saving up for another bottle of scotch made by monkeys!

 

[Nomad Willy]

Steve,
Don Douglass (author of cruising books) checked the bottom before anchoring at least often and perhaps usually. I think he used a small Danforth. But he was writing a book, or several books. Good ones too. But very few would go to that much trouble. Having some idea of the bottom type is necessary to make adjusting the shank angle before it’s deployed even somewhat effective. And most TF guys think their modern anchor is good for all bottom types and using specific anchor for specific bottom types is old school and old school is to be shunned as a fools activity.

Anchors are good enough to have a set failure only on fairly rare occasions. But like every car or boat products have a range of higher performance and when one deviates from the ideal center of performance, performance will fall off .. or crash. Modern anchors have a much wider range but it’s still a range. When one buys an anchor usually nothing is known about this performance range. With your new anchor do you know if it’s optimized for long scope and maximum holding power or short scop abilities ... or an average. You’ll need to use the anchor and have it fail or perform weakly doing certain things to have a good idea.

Anchor tests are really rather crude now but better than ever. Think of all the things that could expand the usefulness of tests. Average density of the bottom. Exact angle of rode to anchor shank to bottom. Fluke area to anchor weight. Fluke aspect ratio. Shank aspect ratio. Specifics on the metal of each part of anchors. Specifics on galvanizing or other finishes like anodizing. Bend angle or failure angle of sideways and vertical loads. Ect ect ect. Most of the important things that could or should be part of an anchor test are unknown. And re your comment “Often they are not completely aware of the exact composition of the seabed” .. the seabed can be very different 4” below tha surface so once an anchor has penetrated a few inches a different anchor type could be required. A very imprecise activity.

 

[FF]

“Often they are not completely aware of the exact composition of the seabed” .. the seabed can be very different 4” below tha surface so once an anchor has penetrated a few inches a different anchor type could be required. A very imprecise activity."

Perhaps but folks with paper charts have a representation of the bottom that gives a good starting point for anchor selection.

 

[Group9]

Absolutely correct! Now let's talk about guns....

I have no need for one. Why do you?

Sarcastic humor-- it's not for everybody!

 

[Nomad Willy]

“Often they are not completely aware of the exact composition of the seabed” .. the seabed can be very different 4” below tha surface so once an anchor has penetrated a few inches a different anchor type could be required. A very imprecise activity."

Perhaps but folks with paper charts have a representation of the bottom that gives a good starting point for anchor selection.

Yea 10% of the time.
Or perhaps your right coast charts are more detailed.

 

[FF]

"Or perhaps your right coast charts are more detailed."

Charts come in many scales , paying for a chart with details costs more.

To understand the details,,

Details on a nautical chart

Many countries' hydrographic agencies publish a "Chart 1", which explains all of the symbols, terms and abbreviations used on charts that they produce for both domestic and international use. Each country starts with the base symbology specified in IHO standard INT 1, and is then permitted to add its own supplemental symbologies to its domestic charts, which are also explained in its version of Chart 1. Ships are typically required to carry copies of Chart 1 with their paper charts.

 

[timb]

I was thinking mantus would be a good choice for when there may be 180 swings. I want one or a sarca.
also since all the anchor experts are here . I think my area is mostly mud . what is the effect going to be if I set my fortress fx 37 at 45deg and happen to be in hard sand ? is it worth the gamble ?

lastly I have a cqr on the bow

 

[Steve Bedford]

I was thinking mantus would be a good choice for when there may be 180 swings. I want one or a sarca.
also since all the anchor experts are here . I think my area is mostly mud . what is the effect going to be if I set my fortress fx 37 at 45deg and happen to be in hard sand ? is it worth the gamble ?

lastly I have a cqr on the bow

There are great anchors out there that have absolutely fantastic holding in mud.

Steve

 

[fryedaze]

One of many tests, I bought 65# Mantus.

What's with this graph! I just swapped my 45# Delta for a 55# Rocna. The Rocna was free from a friend. My therapist just got me through my anchor anxiety. Now you throw up a graph that not only says my new baby is ugly, but she's the ugliest baby in the nursery. I guess it's back to therapy.[emoji12]

 

[Delfin]

Sarcastic humor-- it's not for everybody!

Sanctimoniousness will do that.

Worth mentioning that learning how best to set a particular design of hook is pretty important. I watched a 72' nordhavn try six times to set a pretty BEEFY CQR clone to no avail. Not the easiest anchor to set, I suppose, but it seemed like this Captain was perhaps unfamiliar with the best technique for this particular anchor .

 

[Steve Bedford]

Sanctimoniousness will do that.

Worth mentioning that learning how best to set a particular design of hook is pretty important. I watched a 72' nordhavn try six times to set a pretty BEEFY CQR clone to no avail. Not the easiest anchor to set, I suppose, but it seemed like this Captain was perhaps unfamiliar with the best technique for this particular anchor .

Well said. Each anchor has its own unique setting procedure for the “best” set. Most good anchors will work most of the time when I see some captains just drop, back off, and have a drink, but.....!

 

[Nomad Willy]

timb,
Sell the CQR to a sailboat guy.
Look at Steve G’s thread “Anchor setting Video’s”. Steve tested the Mantus and many other anchors. Steve hasn’t tested the Max but it looks really capable in mud. Re mud I think it’s safe to say most bottoms are mud. That’s why the Danforth was so popular until the 70’s. Then it was the Bruce Claw. Since it was new everybody had to have one. But after about 30 years folks began to realize the Claw didn’t hold anywhere as good as the Danforth that launched in the marketplace in 1938. Then came the Rocna and like new things after 10-15 yrs it came to be that it wasn’t perfect either.

Lucky for buyers now in that there’s about 12 anchors out there that would serve you well. But you could get a good used Claw or Danforth until you make a more permanent choice. Find a quality Dan w the forged shank or a Claw about 1.5 to 2 times the usual anchor weight recommended for your boat. Or you could get a original Claw (the Bruce) three times as big and forget all about a new anchor.

 

[MurrayM]

Sanctimoniousness will do that.

Hee hee heeee...you’re one to talk

 

[Delfin]

Hee hee heeee...you’re one to talk

Yeah....., well, right-o, I guess you'd know....

In any case, the other consideration, which demonstrates why anchor comparisons can be so misleading, is that one anchor at one weight might seem deficit, yet at another weight seems superior. For example, I saw one test where the Rocna and Manson Supreme trailed the Manson Ray (a Bruce clone) in heavier weights on a particular simulated bottom of gravel about the size of tennis balls. Does that mean you should buy a Ray if you plan on anchoring in tennis ball sized gravel? Beats me. So I default to basic physics - an anchor that weighs more is better than one that weighs less if of similar design, and one with a burying design of heavier weight is more likely to be serviceable across a broad range of conditions, than one of different characteristics. That said, if you can carry one, and get it set, an anchor like a Fortress with so much surface area is going to hold you under extreme circumstances. Which, by the way, few of us will encounter. But that is why I carry a large Fortress (well actually the cheaper Guardian) as a backup. Just in case.

 

[BruceK]

No no no..

Hee hee heeee...you’re one to talk

Please don`t quote Delphinium.

 

[MurrayM]

Please don`t quote Delphinium.

Okay...I prefer quoting wild Lupins from BC's Coast Mountains anyways.