Chesapeake Anchor Holding Power Test

The bent shank was definitely the old mild steel version.

All current Mantus anchors sold have the high tensile ATSM 514 shank.

Mantus have offered to upgrade at no charge any of the old shanks for the new version to any customers who purchased the anchor before the high tensile shank was produced.

The Mantus anchor is covered by a lifetime warranty and any bent part will be replaced.

The anchor was originally sent in November, but the roll bar was held up by Greek customs. This arrived while we were on the hard, so the first time I had a chance to use the anchor was when we launched again late April.


I feel a little guilty about this situation as Greg offered to send me a new high tensile shank before any problem occurred. I am cruising full time on the boat moving between little islands and arranging to be in one spot (with a local who is reliable enough to agree to receive a package) is not easy. I suggested to Greg to save sending the new shank untill winter when, although still at anchor I move around less.

I have an obligation to forum readers to report accurately any problems that have occurred, which I have done, but I also have some some obligation to the manufacturer to test the current (not obsolete) product and with more effort on my part these problems could have been avoided.

The circumstances around the bent shaft occurred after the Mantus became very deeply buried in hard sand after some strong wind. My wind instruments are broken at the moment but I estimate we had 45-50 knots, which continued for two days. The highest wind was at night, as it always seems to be, but this was a photo taken at dawn of a 62 foot cat anchor next to me. You can see the large "clouds" of airborne spray as the tops of waves are blown off.

The wind reduced considerably, but swung to an on-shore breeze so we had to leave the anchorage. The wave action from the on-shore wind and left over swell caused the biggest problem during retrieval of the buried anchor. There was a lot of shock loading when the chain was at 1:1 and the bow rose in response to the waves.

The shank should not have bent, but it was very brutal treatment that few owners would ever subject their anchor too.

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.

Noelex,

I am puzzled as to why the detail of the shank bending took so long to emerge. You are testing an anchor for the common good - why the reticence until you are pushed.

You were queried on this some time ago, you have been able to post on other topics in the interim, but have taken your time to answer a very simple question. The answers look highly credible - why the delay.

Again you omit to mention that the only time you tried the anchor in weed/mud it took 2 tries to set it.


Your underwater images are superb, but good images need accurate and timely annotation.

I wonder how long it will be before you post the response, you outline above, on the forum where it was originally raised. I wonder why the detail you now provide was not offered when you originally described the bending of the anchor, one month ago?

You description is credible - but lacks totally credibility given the delay.

Noelex,

This was your description of the shank bending:

quote:

Re: Photos of Anchors Setting.
Well, I promised to give the Mantus a good test.

After the very strong wind a few days ago, the Mantus was buried deeply. This was the result on retrieval .

You can see the shank has bent about 15 degrees.

The anchor had dived a long way down in moderately hard sand and took a lot of breaking out. More than I have experienced with any other normally set anchor, even in similar conditions. This is a great indication of the holding power and short scope performance.

There was quite a bit of wave action in the anchorage so it was difficult to break the anchor out with a nice steady force. Combined with the deep burial, the shock loading from the waves undoubtedly contributed to the bend.

As most people are aware, Mantus have upgraded the strength of the shank to 690 MPa steel (almost 2.5x as strong) and offered a free replacement. Mine is the older mild steel shank. I will fit one of the new HT shanks and give that the torture test.

end quote


You have supplemented this saying (in early September) you have had the anchor for 5 months. The website declares that all the anchors have the new shank from December. 2013

You are very fond of posting images, why now (and as far as I know only here), not then? Why omit all the detail, why are you upset when you are questioned about downplaying the situation - its not that you downplayed it - you gave it cursory coverage - yet it appears, now, the coverage gives graphic detail. You mention short scope, 2:1, 3:1, 5:1 - do we need to guess.

You are testing an anchor, give us the detail - do not make it appear you are making it up later.

And people wonder why I am a sceptic.

Quote by Noelex:

I have an obligation to forum readers to report accurately any problems that have occurred, which I have done, but I also have some some obligation to the manufacturer to test the current (not obsolete) product and with more effort on my part these problems could have been avoided.
__________________
Note : I am currently testing a Mantus anchor that has been provided at no charge. end Quote.

Well Noelex I think you also have the same obligation to this forum, its a pity you had to clear it up here.

By the way what happened to photo of the Mantus on you bow roller where the shank was noticeably bent about 5 degrees prior to the big blow, it was removed until someone requested from you a shot of the Mantus on your bow roller to gauge actual size, you obliged but it was not the same photo that you removed, my son printed it of, if you cannot find it I will ask him to dig it up for me.

Regards Rex.

I am not sure what delay you are referring too. I have detailed a blow by blow description of everything that has occurred with the trial. Most of the time I have published a description and photos, the same day, of how the anchor set just a few hours before.

All the details about the shank have been were posted.

You seem to be inferring I am hiding information. Nothing could be further from the truth? Surely if these problems that you detail were being hidden you would not know about them?

I am happy to answer any questions, but the mild steel shank is no longer produced. Mantus have offered to replace the existing shanks. Is this minutiae relevant, or of interest?

Rex this is photo in the same anchorage before and after the strong wind arrived. I think you can just see enough of shank in the first photo to agree it is nice and straight.

My waterproof camera does have a slight amount of distortion at the extreme wide angle setting and this may have caused your impression.
If you PM me details of the photo I should be able to dig up the original.

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?

Noelex,

I believe you use a sensible nylon snubber, consequently loads would have been minimised - no shock loads. The anchor is oversized and is actually sized as a Storm anchor, not a cruiser anchor - but Storm, 50 knots or more. You mention short scope, the scope was 5:1 - this is not 'short', maybe not long but not exceptional.

Shank strengths have been discussed on this forum and I think others, they are a topic of interest - we want to know what are limits of strength or weakness.

Given the sensitivity of the issue over shank strengths I wonder why you received a mild steel shank (even if it was sent in November - who not wait till December when all shanks were HT steel), I wonder why you used a mild steel shank in the first place. I wonder how many other mild steel shanks are out there - waiting to fail. You suggest you are performing a public service - why are you not making more people aware, who have these mild steel shanked anchors, of the issue -

excuse me if I think you are extolling the virtues and downplaying the weakness

It must be heart warming for you to be able to attack other anchor makers (about which no-one has complained, whilst only extolling the virtues of one given to you.

I do not like glossy pictures without the technical detail, sorry I asked? But I should not need to ask.

Be nice guys...

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.

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.

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.

sunchaser said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Art said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Noelex said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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'.

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,

sunchaser said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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 ...

Click to expand...

Please do the same here.

Marin said:

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..

Click to expand...

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.

Marin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!:lol:


As presented above D-10's do not set very well (It's actually a d-8).
You need Mack Power!

Hey even haul packs work...

Noelex said:

...This photo was taken at my current anchorage and is just one example of how well the anchor has been setting....

Click to expand...

This photo Noelex posted seems to show tell tale track marks of a D10, even before Marin advocated their use in mooring.

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.

Northern Spy said:

Sometimes you have to invent your own problems to solve...

Click to expand...

Marin said:

In all the posts on this thread, this is the smartest, most intelligent, most meaningful, most insightful, and most accurate one of the bunch.

Click to expand...

Even a blind squirrel is right twice a day.

Or something like that.

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.