Mantus Anchors

Did a search and found little on TF regarding Mantus anchors. Experiences? Thoughts? Opinions? Musings? Self blinding dogmatically negative reactions?

Multipurpose Boat Anchor | MantusAnchors

Actually this anchor has been brought to our attention before. Possibly by Eric. My own take on it is that it is a rollbar anchor that lacks some of the features that make a rollbar anchor effective. I don't care for the bolt-together construction.

Overall I don't see anything about the Mantus that would make it superior to the other rollbar anchors on the market. The Jeep tests on the beach are inconclusive. The fact the anchors didn't dig into the soft sand when being pulled at fairly high speed is not surprising. And the editing is such that it is very difficult to tell if the Mantus really did dig in under the same treatment.

There is no explanation on the website as to why the Mantus is supposed to perform so much better. So at this point I would say it represents another iteration of the basic rollbar theme and as such should deliver the basic performance of a rollbar anchor. But my impression is that it's just a copycat design with nothing in particular to make it stand out on its own.

Looks like a winner to me if one needs the "latest/greatest." Isn't marketing wonderful? Afraid one's Rocna is no longer the best? Meanwhile, I'll hold onto my Claw until it fails.

The following video is interesting. Sure they all would have done better with 30 feet of chain and 3:1 scope or more, but the point is the Mantus was the only one to bite.

Not saying I'm buying in, just grazing the options out there...

Mantus Anchor vs Manson Supreme, Rocna,Spade 2:1 scope - YouTube

Sure looks like a Rocna knock-off to me.

I think it breaks down for easy storage

Perhaps they changed the angle by a few degrees to give it an advantage at a 3:1 scope. I don't think that would be a good thing. It may be a disadvantage at 5:1 or 10:1 when you really need it.

AusCan said:

Perhaps they changed the angle by a few degrees to give it an advantage at a 3:1 scope. I don't think that would be a good thing. It may be a disadvantage at 5:1 or 10:1 when you really need it.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it dig deeper then? This is a disadvantage? Not trying to be confrontational, just looking to learn from differing angles of view.

Where I live the bottoms are mostly mud, due to big mountains, heavy glaciation, and copious seasonal rains. The heads of large bays or channels where the bottom has a shallow gradient can also be the most exposed to wind, due to the length of the channels and there being mountains on both sides. This sometimes forces one to anchor on the edge of outwash fans created by smaller streams in smaller bays perpendicular to the main channel, which have a much steeper gradient.

Wouldn't a larger angle, faster/deeper penetrating anchor in these conditions be an advantage?

markpierce said:

Meanwhile, I'll hold onto my Claw until it fails.

Click to expand...

Me too!

It's definitely a Rocna inspired anchor and judging by looks only it appears to be better than the Rocna in every way. But the Rocna has history. The one advantage.

There's only one anchor that I know about that has good short scope performance and that general style .. the Manson Supreme. All others perform fine to excellent given 5-1 or better scope but you may as well have a small Claw at 3-1 or less. Anchors that look like the Delta, Rocna, Spade and perhaps the CQR seem to have poor to mediocre performance when laid out short. Why the Manson does well I don't know. Perhaps it really dosn't. I've used mine at perhaps 2 1/2 to one but not in a blow.

Murray .. what kind of rode do you have? The Mantus is an experiment for the consumer as it has no history and so is the Manson "Boss". It's an unkown too but at least it's made by a well known company w several excellent products behind it. I held a Boss in my hand (an anchor test?) and for it's size think it's light. If one was thinking harshly one would use the word wimpy. But I'd try it before the Mantus. You may be hand deploying your rode and then performance and weight are of great importance and I suspect the Boss is going to out perform everything but that's just an opinion as is most of this post. A 23 lb Fortress w a backup Claw for rocks would be a good option. Your'e going to need short scope performance but I'd like to know if you have a line or chain rode. If weight is of great importance I'd take a look at that Boss. In time you may bend it though.

AusCan,
Sure like the way your'e looking at the throat angle. Yes I agree that w a very small TA one would seem to need a very long scope to make it work. Whereas a wide TA would seem to work well only in soupy mud. That's what is almost certainly behind the Fortress's wide 45 degree option for mud. What I think is that anchors w long shanks that look like Rocnas and Deltas will break out w a wide TA at long scope and have poor short scope performance w a narrow TA. With anchors like Danforths and Claws the balance of too much throat angle or too little is (in my opinion) greatly reduced. And then there's the Manson Supreme.

Is a quick set more important than a good hold?

I've watched his video's and come away with the thought it is a great setting anchor and has huge holding power for his tests. Then, I want to see real world experience with it and don't seem to find much out there for comparison to other anchors.

I was thinking Manson Supreme maybe but on the other hand I have the original Danforth that came with the boat as it's first anchor. It saw the boat from Boston to CA and through the ditch, aka, panama canal. I spoke to my brother who worked on oil rigs in the gulf of Mexico and he said all the rigs use huge Danforth's as anchors.

I also read a web page that started in the 90's from a charter boat company in the Sea of Cortez. He had a section on cruisers and anchoring. He has been in many chubascos, storms and hurricanes. His boats all made it fine with the anchor that looks like a W and is ugly. He said CQR, Danforth, Bruce, Claw types and others all failed there in storms.

This was before the bar type became the fad. The holding ground there is mostly gravel and sand mix and the Danforth types don't dig in well or the plows. He had divers check his anchors and others. This is the real world experience I'd like to see with the Mantus.

The bolts? Put synthetic oil on them.

jeffnick said:

Is a quick set more important than a good hold?

Click to expand...

Definitely not. Our piece of sh*t Bruce anchor set fast in every bottom we encountered. And it also failed almost every time a substantial load was put on it as it has for other boaters we know. This is why we relegated it to propping open a door in the garage and got one of the proven, best-holding anchors in the world to replace it.

Setting fast is totally meaningless if it won't hold when the wind picks up. And that is precisely the problem with the Bruce/Claw type anchors. In the weights used for the size of boats most of us on this forum have--- 33# and 44#--- their holding under high pressure sucks, which has been born out in anchor test after anchor test for decades.

The Mantus looks like a cheap, bolt-together knock off of the proven rollbar anchors--- Bugel, Rocna, Sarca, and Manson. I think Eric's assessment-- based on photos and the website I assume-- that it is "better than the Rocna in every way," is totally off the mark. There is absolutely no way to know this other than using both anchors in a variety of real anchoring situations, not by pulling them at high speed across a soft sand beach with a Jeep station wagon.

The Mantus website and the video demos are vague and iffy at best with virtually no reasons given for the anchor's supposedly superior performance. In contrast, Rocna, Sarca, etc. explain exactly how and why their anchors work, which was one of the two main reasons we bought the anchor we did to replace our unreliable Bruce.

The Mantus site may even be deliberately misleading based on the way the videos are edited. Given the right footage and my Avid editing suite and Adobe AfterEffects, I can easily make an empty dog food can outperform a Sarca. At this point in time, I strongly suspect this is the case with the Mantus demos.

Subscribed. I find it interesting that there are no third party tests/reviews available save the one below that mentions the Mantus:

A Second Look at Anchor Shanks - Inside Practical Sailor Blog Article

jeffnick said:

Is a quick set more important than a good hold?

Click to expand...

Sure,

How many times have you had trouble getting an anchor to set v/s how many times have you dragged?

An average anchor set is way better than super anchor that won't. duh

manyboats said:

Sure,

How many times have you had trouble getting an anchor to set v/s how many times have you dragged?

Click to expand...

That is totally back-asswards in my opinion. What good is an anchor if it won't hold when it matters? None, no matter how easy it might have been to set it. And so what if it sometimes takes a couple of tries to get a good set? That's irrelevant in comparison to having that same anchor let go at 0300 when the wind and waves kick up and you need that anchor to stay put.

Putting the emphasis on setting is just dumb, in my opinion. Most anchor designs will set just fine the first time. But not that many anchor designs will hold well when they really get pulled on. The Bruce/Claw is the absolute worst in this regard but other anchors like the CQR will give up sooner rather than later when subjected to a good strong pull.

If it won't hold it's not worth having on the boat.

Self reset is critical when tidal currents reverse.

We have never experienced an anchor reset when the currents reverse up here, even a 4 knot current. This is with our current anchor. I suspect our POS Bruce was not unsetting either under those conditions even though we weren't using a tripline and float with it because it never dug in deep enough to need one. So we had no way of determining if the Bruce was still exactly where it had initially set.

With our current anchor we ofen use a trip line because if it blows good the anchor will dig in so deep it's faster to simply back it out with the trip line than use the boat to break it out. So we can tell exactly where the anchor is from the position of the trip line float. There is simply not enough pressure from a current reversal alone to unset the anchor--- at least not this one--- and move it around until it resets.

However.... we use all-chain rode and a minimum 5:1 scope so if there is no wind a current reversal of even 4 knots or so does not put enough pressure on the boat to even lift all the chain off the bottom. So the anchor itself most likely never sees the pull reversal at all. This was probaby true of the Bruce as well since we used the same chain and the same amount of it under low-wind conditions.

Wind shifts with medium to strong winds are totally different situations.

Marin wrote;

"Putting the emphasis on setting is just dumb, in my opinion."

Calling me "dumb" is not acceptable. And you have already expressed your opinion and expressing an opinion multiple times does not make it anymore right than it was the first time. But I will say that if you're anchoring in such mild conditions that you could say "reversal of even 4 knots or so does not put enough pressure on the boat to even lift all the chain off the bottom" ...... what on earth are you going to do w all this holding power? 99% of the time it's best you get anchored in the first place and stay hooked up and then dealing w the 1% you could stand watch and otherwise deal w the 1% in a seamanlike manner. The boat and your safety are only compromised if YOU drop the ball.

Have you come within feet of losing a $100,000 boat because a storm came in six hours earlier than forecast and a piece of sh*t anchor didn't hold? We have. And more than once although the last time was the real clincher. And we have friends who have come even closer to losing their boat with a crappy Bruce anchor than we have.

Until you've experienced something like that, and multiple times to boot, you don't have a clue how important holding power really is. Even if you only need it a few times a year or a few times in ten years, if you don't have good holding power, you may not have a boat.

So don't try to tell me that holding power is irrelevant compared to the ease of setting. I don't give a crap if I have to try ten times to get an anchor to set properly if I know that once it is set it's not going anywhere come hell or high water. The Bruce/Claw type anchor doesn't come within a million miles of inspiring that kind of confidence. Our current anchor does.

Which is why I say--- from direct experience--- that the notion of putting ease of setting before holding is a dumb philosophy to follow.

You have said in the past that you have had relatively little anchoring experience which tells me that most of your assumptions about anchors and anchoring is armchair theory. We've been on deck in five foot waves and 40 knot winds at 3 am with the boat being blown down fast onto a railroad trestle. Our friends have been in the same situation only their boat was being blown into a cliff. So I'm not interested in a bunch theory about how anchors should work. What I'm intersted in is how anchors DO work. Or don't in the case of the Bruce.

So I know from trying to get a boat out of danger more than once that holding is WAY more important than ease of setting. That's not an armchair theory, that's reality.

Pau Hana said:

Subscribed. I find it interesting that there are no third party tests/reviews available save the one below that mentions the Mantus:

A Second Look at Anchor Shanks - Inside Practical Sailor Blog Article

Click to expand...

PauHana,
It looks to me like they may be getting their "tensile strength" and hardness mixed up. And if a steel gets hard enough it will break instead of bend. Aircraft bolts are made out of a steel that bends before breaking. The (AN (army navy)) bolt is weaker but safer because it bends a lot before it breaks. Where-as a grade 5 or 8 "SAE" bolt will break when bent although it is considerably stronger in "tensile strength".
If there are faults in what I have just said the point is that hardness may not be the best yardstick for judging strength.

I was pleased seeing this Claw anchor fluke bend and not break. I saw two Claws in Craig that were bent at the shank at least as bad as this. And fishermen usually carry anchors much larger than most of us that tend to go larger. So you can imagine the forces these anchors were exposed to.

"What I'm intersted in is how anchors DO work" says Marin.

Like in how well they set?

Other than that Marin what's your opinion?

manyboats said:

"What I'm intersted in is how anchors DO work" says Marin.

Like in how well they set?

Click to expand...

No. Like in how well they hold once they are set.

I could care less how an anchor sets. If it lies on its side and pivots in or digs straight in or puts one fluke in and then turns to put the others in.... it's all totally irrelevant to me as long as it DOES set. But once it's set it damn well better stay set because THAT's what's important in anchoring. It's why they call it an "anchor," not a "setter."

If an anchor sets nicely-- like the Bruce--- and then comes out under pressure--- like the Bruce--- then it's a completely worthless anchor in my view. Which is why our Bruce is not only acting as a door stop in our garage but is also why we will not sell it to anyone. Boating friends have asked to buy it because it's a genuine Bruce in perfect condition and they are no longer made. But we feel it would be bordering on criminal to sell an accident waiting to happen to an unsuspecting boater. So it will serve out its life as a doorstop until such time as we send it to a landfill with the rest of our garbage.

manyboats said:

Murray .. what kind of rode do you have?

Click to expand...

Hi Eric,

Our boat came with a 7.5 kg Bruce, 30' of chain and 300' of anchor line. Pretty small anchor for a 30' boat presenting such a broad face to the wind...

The plan is to move up to at least a 10 kg Lewmar Claw (if we stay with the same style of anchor) with 30' of 5/16" chain and 350' of 1/2" 8 strand brait line. We have a capstan winch, so I'll be hauling by hand once the chain comes aboard.

MurrayM said:

We have a capstan winch, so I'll be hauling by hand once the chain comes aboard.

Click to expand...

You already know how I feel about the Bruce/Claw particularly in the smaller sizes so we'll leave that alone. But I'm wondering if your windlass can be fitted with a combination drum? One that can retrieve both line and chain.

This sort of thing is available on a number of different makes of windlasses although I can't tell you offhand which ones. But perhaps it might be worth looking into because if your windlass can be fitted with one it will save you having to haul up the chain and anchor by hand. Which is no fun I can tell you, having had to do it once when the windlass that came with the boat lunched some gears. Which is why we have a new one now.

Mantus anchors

Marin wrote:
But we feel it would be bordering on criminal to sell an accident waiting to happen to an unsuspecting boater. So it will serve out its life as a doorstop until such time as we send it to a landfill with the rest of our garbage.


Rex writes:
Marin does have a point, equally it would also be bordering on a criminal act, or worse to sell an anchor designed with a specific steel grade to be redeemed as safe, then only to meet a price, reduce the quality of its original steel make up resulting in bent shanks.


Of course we need anchors that will rapidly penetrate and then hold, I have no doubt that weather the Mantus has third party tests or not theIr anchors do as they claim, this type of anchor technology is now becoming more of the norm.

The road maps are laid and should be easy to follow, I can tell you, get set for yet another design to hit the market shortly. No not mine.


So I don’t think there will be any problems with what Mantus claims, something that is even more important and should be questioned is design and construction, I say this partly due to the far better holding power of modern anchor designs, modern anchor technology, more holding power requires stronger better build and design, when searching new anchor technology also search the product for quality and certification of build and proof test.


As we have had to go through the whole process so many times with an independent authorized tester, it has helped us enormously and been a complete eye opener as to what we thought was strong enough, another reason for certification is it puts not just the strength of an anchor design through its paces but proves its ability to set , reset if broken out , a required penetration distance, then to maximum hold distance resulting in an independent of the holding power per kilo of anchor weight, this is all done in sand.


If you want approval in various types of sea floors then the same tests have be carried out by the same independent tester in the types of sea floor you are seeking certification for.


Finally, if you build an anchor design out of mild steel it still has to meet all of the above requirement’s, so steel quality is not the issue if it is a tested certified anchor design, the mild steel will befar thicker to cope with the required loads, however the mild steel does not have good recoil properties to absorb shock, we use all 360 grade mild steel in the Super Sarca’s and in twenty years have only heard of four bent anchors, this I believe is because meet a standard, not high holding power standards, Super high holding power standards, far superior to high holding power build construction.


The Excel is a different beast, it requires thinner steels to obtain correct orientation among many other aspects of its design, I take Erics point as to high tensile steels snapping, this is why we run with bisaloy 80, it is not to say we have the strongest shank but to meet the requirements for Super High Holding power proof tests, with one major advantage over mild steel, Bisaloy has incredible flexing and recoil properties that majorly help to reduce shock to anchor design , and reduce shock loads on the boat itself.


As Far as I am concerned this is where many of you should be focusing your attention, I know in some parts of the world certification can be bought, here in Australia you are scrutinized all the way and can simply get away with nothing, this is why boats under survey required certified anchors.


Both of our Designs are accredited with Super High Holding Power Certification.

Regards Rex.

Murray,
I do the same thing. Pull the nylon line up until the chain comes over the bow roller and then haul the chain and anchor aboard easily by hand ... unless I've got my 35lb anchor on the line and then it's a grunt for me but a younger person w/o back troubles may still find that easy. Most of my anchors are 18 to 22lbs. The whole system works very well except the line wants to run off side of the drum. Need a fix there.

Here's my setup in the pic. The line is 5/8ths Brait (not braid). There's 325' of the 5/8ths then there's 100' of 3 strand 1/2". The 1/2" is a sacrificial piece to save the Brait.

Our boats are the same size except the Willard is heavier. The Brait is overkill and purchased just before coming to Alaska. I think 1/2" is probably fine for both our boats.

I don't know where everybody gets this idea that the original anchor of any type is superior to all anchors (called knockoffs) that strongly resemble the original. The principals of evolution suggest otherwise. Of course one must find out if a "knockoff" is a cheaply made approximation of the original or a superior product evolved from the original design. Anything can be improved upon. There are a number of anchors that look like the Delta. Shark for one. Is it better or a cheap imitation? Anchor tests and BS on the docks is about all we've got to go on. Plus our own opinion of what the anchor looks like. I was very very impressed w the Manson Boss until I picked one up and held it. Now I'm just very impressed. If I didn't have so many anchors I'd try one. Seemed too light and there's no guarantee if bent. But Manson has a good reputation. By comparison my Manson Supreme seems over heavy.

An original Bruce is forged, most claw copies are cast. There is a difference.

Spy,
Dosn't matter now as the Bruce brand is history.

As for the Claws they are so cheap and they get bent so seldom (and I've never heard of one breaking) it would seem silly to worry about it's quality in that regard. But they are all a bit different and it would be nice to know which ones were best in performance.

I bought a new 22lb Claw for $70. in Alaska. Probably not much room for quality materials in that price and if I used it for years I probably wouldn't bend it. One would be inclined to say good enough.

But Spy you have a point ... forged v/s cast. Perhaps all the bent Claws I've seen were not Bruce anchors.

Rex said:

Marin wrote:
But we feel it would be bordering on criminal to sell an accident waiting to happen to an unsuspecting boater. So it will serve out its life as a doorstop until such time as we send it to a landfill with the rest of our garbage.


Rex writes:
Marin does have a point, equally it would also be bordering on a criminal act, or worse to sell an anchor designed with a specific steel grade to be redeemed as safe, then only to meet a price, reduce the quality of its original steel make up resulting in bent shanks.

Click to expand...

I certainly agree with that. Fortunately our anchor was made long before production was moved to China and the ensuing metal quality issues arose. For this reason I hesitate today to recommend this brand of anchor to people thinking about buying a new one because I simply don't know what their quality is like nowadays. Since the company's takeover by Canadian Metals I have read that the quality is back where it is supposed to be. And I've also read that the anchors that were made with the lesser grade of steel are still more than strong enough for the job. The issue was more about misleading information from the manufacturer than it was about the actual strength of the anchors.

The design of this anchor is, in my opinioni anyway, still the best on the market for this type (rollbar) of anchor. The other reputable rollbar anchors are extremely good and we'd feel good about having any of them on our boat, particularly the Sarca. But I believe the Rocna design is still superior. Obviously this is disputed by fans of the other anchor brands.

In reality I think it's a Ford-Chevy sort of thing. In the end, it comes down to individual preferences and I think the Rocna has design features that make it just a wee bit better than the others, just as I feel Ford's F-series pickups have design features that make it just a bit better than Chevy's Silverado pickups. (Having just been through an extensive research and comparison process for a pickup it's a subject that is very recent to me).