Another round of anchor controversy

Do you think my windlass will pull this anchor up?

Rex; [COLOR=black said:

Low and behold on another forum we had anchor discussions taken to a new level, we had a topless mermaid photographing anchors, the Mermaid belonged to a moderator just to make a point, the mermaid; is a moderator also, extraordinarily lengths some go to as 90 percent of the photos are taken of the one anchor design, what is going on - WHY ? I think as a result there will be many opposition anchors shown in poor light, new inventive ideas are exposing new tactics by some wanna bees, create more attention than others, surely that’s all it can be? If they were independent no problem, Moderator Mermaid anchor inspectors—what next?[/COLOR]

Regards Rex.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Click to expand...

Janet, are you listening. We've been getting short changed it seems.

Its a bit passé now and certainly seedy, very 20th Century, but when a marketing exercise lost steam then they would try semi naked ladies - it hid the fact there was nothing extra to say but gave the sales pitch a new lease of life. (It had legs in the UK for third rate newspapers with 'Page 3' topless wannabes.) Its maybe the lessor of 2 evils as the alternative was to knock the competition (or employ real journalists).

But none of this would happen in the anchor industry, so quite what Rex refers to?

Moonstruck said:

Janet, are you listening. We've been getting short changed it seems.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if people are complaining that there have been too many photos of my wife (whom I affectionately call my Mermaid), or not enough .

I have not counted them but I think there are about half a dozen shots of her in a series of over 1000 photos showing anchors and how they work in the real world. The photos document every anchor we have seen over the last 8 months.

Anyway I think she will be secretly flattered to get so much attention .

This is an example of what all the fuss is about:

Noelex,


Well there you go-the real world-just a passing comment don't know about all of the fuss and so much attention comment but then again?


Regards Rex.

Noelex,

Trying to keep the thread on track - any pictures in mud?

Following this has certainly given me a headache.

When does a thread jump the shark? I don't know but I think this poor old shark has died of old age. Probably bleaching his bones next to my trusty galvanised anchor.

Oh, and a happy Christmas to you Rex.

Djbangi said:

any pictures in mud?

Click to expand...

Mermaids or anchors?

Noelex said:

Mermaids or anchors?

Click to expand...

I thought I'd better edit

Do you have any pictures of different anchors set in mud?

>Do you think my windlass will pull this anchor up?<

Probably not but concrete is not that heavy in water so your boat may drag it along quire well in the next blow. Use it in a soft mud bottom for better results.

Mushroom cast iron anchors are of that shape , not a blob of iron , for a reason.

eyschulman said:

Just another observation. I scanned the new copy of Yachting magazine I just received with magnification. Did not include the adds in back. I found 28 anchors I can see well enough to say with fair accuracy that only one might have been a Danforth or Fortress and all the others definitely not. Spade type anchors dominate the 27. I have been doing this with multiple boating magazines for more than a year and this result is typical. Where I see more Danforths and fortress in my area is when I walk the docks or examine boats(CGAUX safety examiner) which I do often. My general impression is that older and smaller boats tend to have more of these anchors while newer and larger boats tend to have other than Danforth types. I leave it to whoever reads this to draw what conclusions they will. Does anyone think that the magazines and boat builders won't put Fortress on the bow because they are ugly??

Click to expand...

I dunno if I could draw any conclusions at all. I think some anchors are there simply because that's the way the boat was delivered.

I know our boat, for example) was delivered with an inadequate anchor -- not quite meeting the anchor manufacturer's recommendation for weight, ignoring windage factor, etc. -- and I believe it was selected because of two primary factors:

- it was likely least expensive for them to source, in bulk
- it fits the roller nicely

I doubt the boat manufacturer had any expectation that boats like ours would be anything other than marina-hoppers, and I'd expect their reasoning also included the thought that if necessary, the boat buyer could replace the original whatever, afterwards... if at all.

Anyway, I see lots of boats around here, and the only conclusion I can usually draw is that they're marina-hoppers, don't anchor out much (if at all), and if they do anchor out, they only do that in non-stress conditions. Gross generalization, of course, but none of that gives me any indication about what anchors might work better than others.

-Chris

Djbangi said:

Do you have any pictures of different anchors set in mud?

Click to expand...

Not a lot so far.

I have not had the underwater camera long. In summer I prefer to avoid mud anchorages as the water is not as clear and pleasant for swimming.

In winter the added protection of enclosed bays is sometimes needed. These tend to have mud bottoms. So there will hopefully be lots of mud photos to share as I work my way south during winter.

This is a photo in our current anchorage. Unfortunately, the water has been too murky lately, so this is a few days old. My Mermaid added some Christmas decoration .

The Mantus has set very nicely. If not for roll bar and float, the anchor would not be seen at all. However, this sort of substrate is very easy and most anchor designs would set well.

guys this is very much on topic:

Noelex states the below
over 1000 photos showing anchors and how they work in the real world. The photos document every anchor we have seen over the last 8 months.

Rex wrote:
Well I can only count around two hundred photos roughly, there are a few from others that show their anchors working extremely well, 90 percent of your photos account for the anchor design on your boat, the rest leave us wanting in anchor size Information, the size boats they are deployed on, weight of those anchors, detail as to if they are genuine, some you have identified but not many, anchor Rhode lengths, types, comparisons, who was using snubbers, methods of setting-skimpy.

You are right this is the real world in mostly very calm consistant conditions, twice you commented of how you were not happy with your anchor set so you continued trying and moving until you were satisfied it would hold, disappointing as these are the times that really test your anchors when dropping in emergencies-it would have been good to see the outcome.
I noticed the ones that did drag never had a mermaid to check their anchor set and took pot luck.

What many are looking for are similar as to what you have done in what you might call rough conditions, even mild storm to full on storm, if can achieve this then it is a real world test, pulling out in change of tide, resetting ability, 360 degrees over the anchor flipping it upside down, most importantly will they all right themselves in these conditions that can leave you wanting because of the above paragraph.

The Tsunami that hit Phuket was a great example of anchor performance in extreme conditions, many of the boats anchored there were washed out to see and smashed, the good old Sarca anchors, the three boats hooked on them in the path of that Tsunami did not move, as a result one boat was able to drag a women on board to resuscitate her, she lived.

If you were to try and film, photograph these conditions under water you would not live to tell the story, so none of this hard core evidence you all desire will be forth coming, fortunately we have the runs on the board to say that the original Sarca has proven itself in the real world before all of this controversy long before the so called new generation charge, we can only back our designs based on the Tsunami and twenty years longevity of virtually faultless performance. That is a good test regardless of mags.

Yes Noelex my wife is also my Mermaid, she is also precious to me, enough so as I will not allow the world to spy on her in attire other than appropriate.

But yes Noelex your photos are interesting for about the first twenty. Your contributors are more realistic and seem less bias though. Sorry.

Regards Rex.

Rex said:

The Tsunami that hit Phuket was a great example of anchor performance in extreme conditions, many of the boats anchored there were washed out to see and smashed, the good old Sarca anchors, the three boats hooked on them in the path of that Tsunami did not move, as a result one boat was able to drag a women on board to resuscitate her, she lived.

Click to expand...

Oh please! The most significant risk to an anchored vessel from a tsunami wave is the scope of the anchor rhode. If the scope is too short the anchor either pulls out or the bow submerges and the boat sinks. There are several articles about people scuba diving off the coast from an anchored boat when the wave came through. They had no idea what happened until they tried to return to port. The divers described it as some minor disturbance and the rising and falling of sea level.

Ted

Noelex said:

I am not sure if people are complaining that there have been too many photos of my wife (whom I affectionately call my Mermaid), or not enough .

I have not counted them but I think there are about half a dozen shots of her in a series of over 1000 photos showing anchors and how they work in the real world. The photos document every anchor we have seen over the last 8 months.

Anyway I think she will be secretly flattered to get so much attention .

This is an example of what all the fuss is about:

Click to expand...

Thanks, all we usually get are pictures of Al (FlyWright) in his Speedo.

Marin said:

Eric-- I think your post 131 is very well thought out and is probably spot on. .

Click to expand...

I second that statement.

Moonstruck said:

Thanks, all we usually get are pictures of Al (FlyWright) in his Speedo.

Click to expand...

Ah, Al appearing in his Speedo could prove to be the ultimate anchor raising test.

Well, my mermaid likes it. I've got 1000's more to post if you'd like...



How about we return to anchoring and stay away from anchor-poster analysis and potshots. Let's leave the personal put downs at the door and stay on topic. I know there are a few players here that enjoy nothing more than swiping at the other players and their anchors. It's been going on for quite a while on other sites, but won't float here.

I remind all of the "Be Nice" rule. Thank you and Happy New Year!

When some don't understand they resort to the horse beating thing or jokes.

But 169 posts is beyond the joke line for most posts.

I guess TC is OK as long as you do it w a joke.

I almost forgot
Thanks Marin and Tom.

Moonstruck said:

Janet, are you listening. We've been getting short changed it seems.

Click to expand...

Yes - I'm listening. Regarding being short changed... I will happily delegate this task to another more ambitious member of the site team. Whom shall I choose?

Noelex said:

Anyway I think she will be secretly flattered to get so much attention .

Click to expand...

ermm... is she aware?

Fortress has been criticised for testing in one seabed type, forgetting that most anchor testing is done in one seabed type (usually sand). Noelex excellent pictures are again in one seabed type but Fortress did develop a protocol where every anchor was tested the same way (even if that way does not suit the ideas of everyone (or even the anchor). But Fortress compared, as well as possible - like with like, similar weight anchor, same scope, same rode, same speed of load etc. same seabed - independent observers.

Despite constant criticism no-one can offer a sensible, and I stress the sensible (and a lot of that is economic), method of producing anchor performance results that would satisfy even a few more people. Noelex technique has some commendable aspects but its hardly science, we have no idea of anchor sizes, depth, variability of the seabed, chain type etc. So the pictures are good but hardly tell anything as we are not comparing like with like. No-one comments on the test methodology used by Sail/West Marine (was that better?) and a similar technique is used by Voile et Vloieurs. Anchor Right aka Rex use a 'shore' based rig (as does John Knox) and much of Practical Sailor's work uses something similar - are these latter test techniques of value?

It is surprising considering the flak Fortress has received no-one is willing to offer a better, or even alternative, option. An alternative does not need to be all things to all men, or women - but any idea might be a start.


edit

I am sure many of you would like to see more anchor tests and tests with which you can relate - here is a chance to make a difference. Maybe Rocna, Manson or Fortress would take on board any suggestions (though do not expect them to acknowledge your help) Some anchor testing is expensive - if there was a cheaper and more acceptable way (or even an expensive and more acceptable way) maybe we would get less controversial data

close edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s42/another-round-anchor-controversy-18002-9.html#post294628

The Tsunami that hit Phuket was a great example of anchor performance in extreme conditions, many of the boats anchored there were washed out to see and smashed, the good old Sarca anchors, the three boats hooked on them in the path of that Tsunami did not move, as a result one boat was able to drag a women on board to resuscitate her, she lived.

Oh please! The most significant risk to an anchored vessel from a tsunami wave is the scope of the anchor rhode. If the scope is too short the anchor either pulls out or the bow submerges and the boat sinks. There are several articles about people scuba diving off the coast from an anchored boat when the wave came through. They had no idea what happened until they tried to return to port. The divers described it as some minor disturbance and the rising and falling of sea level.

Ted
__________________
Ted Green
ocdiver.com
Consider this my opinion.......sometimes I'm even right, but remember.........YMMV

Rex Wote:
Well Ted who is right and who is wrong bares no significance to me, we saved a life, how bloody good was that, the lady she lives-convince her it was anchor Rhode and not the Sarca that saved her life?
You may be right, the Sarca users must have been intelligent yachtsman as none of them dragged due to Rhode length I suppose, Ted you have a good name, it too was my father’s—he was a septic if ever there was one.
If you are not convinced-- want more on our anchor performance, then recorded by the NRL in the U.K.- the rescue of a boat in force ten anchored on a Sarca documented in the U.K. with the events leading up to it recorded on their radio and documented —let me know and I will pm the whole story to you and anyone else if interested.
Look this Mermaid scene is not mine but there may be a good dollar in this for Noelex, put out a sign and photo of his mermaid when anchored --- stating, if you are not sure your anchor is set you can hire a mermaid to check.
Maybe the idea will catch on—I would hate to see where it could lead to if competition gets stiff.
Regards Rex.

Despite constant criticism no-one can offer a sensible, and I stress the sensible (and a lot of that is economic), method of producing anchor performance results that would satisfy even a few more people.

Click to expand...

In our opinions, the only truly viable way of judging an anchor design's performance is through user testimonials, and as many and from as wide a variety of anchoring situations as possible.

Unfortunately, this requires a fair amount of time and effort on the part of the person desiring the information. As opposed to anchor tests, which lay everything out in one easy-to-read chart.

User testimonials also run the risk of being biased. So it's important to be able to judge the validity of the testimonial, which isn't always easy either.

We bought our first anchor based on its numerical popularly in this area. If half the boaters in the region seem to use it, it must be good, right?

We bought the anchor that replaced the first one based almost entirely on user-testimonials. Sure, we looked at the manufacturer's website, talked to the manufacturer, and watched various videos about how the design worked. That showed us that the design makes sense. But it didn't tell us anything about the anchor's performance and reliability in the real world. Neither did the various anchor tests at the time, even though they rated the anchor very highly.

So we went in search of user testimonials, and we spent a few months looking and reading. Today this would be even easier thanks to the every-increasing use of the internet by just about everybody for just about everything. But even eight years ago or so there was plenty of material available if one took the time to dig it up.

Unfortunately we weren't able to talk directly to people about their experiences with the anchor because there weren't any here yet. So we had to rely on what we could find to read. Today, as these anchors become more numerous in this area one could talk directly to users as well as read testimonials about them on-line. The sailboaters who share our finger float have the same anchor we do and they have told us of their experiences with it in the open anchoranges of the southwestern Pacific. Back when we were researching the anchor we found similar testimonials on line, but it's nice to be able to talk directly to the user-- it makes it easier to judge the validity of their story.

But in my opinion, the only way to accurately judge the performance and reliability of a device that is intended to function in an almost infinite combination of variables is to gather as broad a database of performance and reliability records as possible under as many combinations of variables as possible. The only way I can see to do that is to gather as many user testimonials as one can find.

Anchor tests provide only one set of variables, and as such I think can actually paint a very inaccurate and misleading picture of how a particular anchor will do in the real world of anchoring a vessel.

MARIN Wrote:
So we went in search of user testimonials, and we spent a few months looking and reading. Today this would be even easier thanks to the every-increasing use of the internet by just about everybody for just about everything. But even eight years ago or so there was plenty of material available if one took the time to dig it up.
Rex Wrote:
Well there you go, I actually agree with Marin, the questions most want answered are when an anchor is really put to the test, not going to happen, even with a go pro you can see nothing in those situations.
So- if you are looking at a new anchor design with very few reports, based on the past of one particular brand check, ask the question, is this anchor tested, field and proof tested for strength and performance, what type of steels and can I have a test cert, certification ensures you do not have excitable bendy shanks, field testing has to come up to the AUTHORITIES SET DISTANCE, HOLD, CHANGE OF TIDE, only will this be conducted in sand as other substrates offer to many variables.
If you decide on a new and untested brand and your b---lls are not big enough buy on the bases that after a six months trial if the customer is not happy then they will be fully refunded.
Longevity on the market, actual real life recorded situations of independent performance, Marin is right, your choice is then clearer without the argument, for instance we saved a life due to----------- it is as simple as that.
Yes I know, if only anchor threads were that simple.
Regards Rex

Marin,

its strange but the popularity you describe of your favourite anchor is simply missing here and in NZ. Look at local boating magazines (Oz/NZ), if that is to be a measure, and other modern anchors feature more highly. Make of that, what you will.

But my belief is that without the anchor testing, such as, Sail/WM (2006) and the cacophony of internet (or forum) posts at the end of the last decade (much of which was not constructive) it is difficult to accept that this, the tests and the rhetoric, has been negative for modern anchors and some brands in particular. In fact the Rocna weak shank debacle might have spread their name - there is no such thing as bad advertising -. Personally looking back (and assuming it was not some sophisticated strategy) the Rocna story would not be where it is today without the Sail tests, Craig and mild steel shanks. Look at new anchors today - who has heard of the Knox Anchor and who has heard of Mantus? Knox is not even a 7 day wonder but Mantus has a whole thread devoted to it and one user. Or why did Supermax never gain traction? Its not about user experience - its about hits on Google and posts on forum (and anchor tests engender posts on forum).

So if my thesis has any basis, we will continue to have anchor tests - so lets make them applicable.

Though if they were non contentious maybe there would be no forum rhetoric

Well if an anchor test was a good one (and I don't know if I've ever seen one) I can't relate to Marin's notion that "testimonials" would be a good way to get objective information on anchors. A good way to get lots of opinions but I can't imagine any way to get more biased opinions. Opinions at best and biased to be sure.

Anchor tests should be unbiased and objective but how can a test even begin to be unbiased when an ad for an anchor (that is represented in the test) is part of what's presented as an unbiased test. Ridiculous!

But as I've stated before we don't test anchors as we don't use them anywhere near the limits to their capabilities.
Draggo (the manufacturer of the XYZ wanted me to find a very powerful fishing boat and have them set the XYZ and then try to pull it out. Didn't do that but in a way I wish I had. It may be that other manufacturers don't want the XYZ to become known. Several anchor testers have claimed not to be able to get the XYZ to set. I sure can and I'm just a boater. It's unbelievable that anchor testers actually can't set an anchor. I said it ....... "unbelievable".
Testers should be looking for the truth. If they really wanted to find out what the anchor was capable of they would.

manyboats said:

Well if an anchor test was a good one (and I don't know if I've ever seen one) I can't relate to Marin's notion that "testimonials" would be a good way to get objective information on anchors. A good way to get lots of opinions but I can't imagine any way to get more biased opinions. Opinions at best and biased to be sure.

Anchor tests should be unbiased and objective but how can a test even begin to be unbiased when an ad for an anchor (that is represented in the test) is part of what's presented as an unbiased test. Ridiculous!

Click to expand...

Well there we go. How many of us want to believe testing done on drugs we take when the test is paid for by the drug company making advertising and selling the drug. The medical and drug industry have had many incidence of problems with this very concept. In our capitalist society where sales and money and the holy bottom line too often take precedence the consumer has to beware and that is exactly part of what is happening here with the FORTRESS test note FORTESS test paid for by fortress. The drug tests that have gone bad usually have everybody involve screaming it was totally independent and well set up NO WAY if the drug company paid for it and had input into who does it or where and how. What I have said from the beginning is this is more like advertising certainly not independent non biased testing. If other anchor producers respond with similar testing it will be more of the same. Only if a truly independent test is set up would it be free of the taint of advertising. I can see a way where the anchor producers pay and still get independent testing. Say a supper fund is set up money from all the producers and a organization like consumers or practical sailor is given the task to design and run the test with no interference. Of course I see no way that will ever happen. As it is now we have the typical capitalist competitive situation and the boating public will decide which anchors go on the bow or in the hold and it may or may not have something to do with which anchors work best. All tests aside my dollars vote for the digging spade anchors for the bow and an Aluminum anchor for the bilge.

Good to see Rex here, and as I have said before, I believe that he is a pioneer in anchor design. A few random thoughts on this discussion:

- I have discussed the Chesapeake Bay test in person with the Manson and Ultra people, and neither voiced an objection to the methodology or results, in fact, the Ultra representative stated that he felt we did a very good job with the testing.

- On the flip side, this snippet is from the original PassageMaker story about the testing:

Rocna disputed the results, noting that tests conducted by SAIL, a PassageMaker sister publication, tell a different story. “Anchor testing involves a large number of variables, which if not properly controlled can bias the outcome,” says Mark Pocock of Canada Metals, the maker of Rocna anchors. “The results of these tests, sponsored by one of Rocna’s competitors, are not consistent with independent tests that consistently rank Rocna as a top performer.

What Rocna failed to mention is that the Sail magazine tests he was referring to (actually conducted by West Marine) were in a harder soil.....as have been ALL other independent tests....and not in SOFT MUD.

Additionally, I think he would find it very difficult to find any boating writer who was aboard and witnessed the testing who would say we did something to "bias the outcome."

- Comments have been made that we "cherry-picked" the bottom. Let me elaborate on how that decision was made: Early this year I contacted the university and was referred to the captain of the Rachel Carson RV.

I told him that we wanted to conduct a holding power test in soft mud. Fine, he said, no problem. Based on Bob Taylor's input, I told him that it should be a specific soil sheer strength, and again, he assured me there was soft mud all throughout the local area.

Once we got aboard, he pulled out a chart and sure enough, we could have picked any number of nearby areas with soft mud bottoms, and we chose the one closest to save on the fuel costs for the 81-ft Rachel Carson. That's it, and so in no way was this bottom "unique" as I think was implied.

- It is my understanding that Practical Sailor will be writing a detailed report on the testing. I am sure that it will be well received.

FWIW,
Brian

Fortress Anchors said:

Good to see Rex here, and as I have said before, I believe that he is a pioneer in anchor design. A few random thoughts on this discussion:

- I have discussed the Chesapeake Bay test in person with the Manson and Ultra people, and neither voiced an objection to the methodology or results, in fact, the Ultra representative stated that he felt we did a very good job with the testing.

- On the flip side, this snippet is from the original PassageMaker story about the testing:

Rocna disputed the results, noting that tests conducted by SAIL, a PassageMaker sister publication, tell a different story. “Anchor testing involves a large number of variables, which if not properly controlled can bias the outcome,” says Mark Pocock of Canada Metals, the maker of Rocna anchors. “The results of these tests, sponsored by one of Rocna’s competitors, are not consistent with independent tests that consistently rank Rocna as a top performer.

What Rocna failed to mention is that the Sail magazine tests he was referring to (actually conducted by West Marine) were in a harder soil.....as have been ALL other independent tests....and not in SOFT MUD.

Additionally, I think he would find it very difficult to find any boating writer who was aboard and witnessed the testing who would say we did something to "bias the outcome."

- Comments have been made that we "cherry-picked" the bottom. Let me elaborate on how that decision was made: Early this year I contacted the university and was referred to the captain of the Rachel Carson RV.

I told him that we wanted to conduct a holding power test in soft mud. Fine, he said, no problem. Based on Bob Taylor's input, I told him that it should be a specific soil sheer strength, and again, he assured me there was soft mud all throughout the local area.

Once we got aboard, he pulled out a chart and sure enough, we could have picked any number of nearby areas with soft mud bottoms, and we chose the one closest to save on the fuel costs for the 81-ft Rachel Carson. That's it, and so in no way was this bottom "unique" as I think was implied.

- It is my understanding that Practical Sailor will be writing a detailed report on the testing. I am sure that it will be well received.

FWIW,
Brian

Click to expand...

Just my opinion Brian, but what you did with these tests was as close to a scientific study of anchor performance as I have seen. Scientific studies rarely address universal conditions, but rather focus on one or two things to try to get to a better understanding. In personal experience, I've collaborated on scientific studies on the effect of periodontal disease risk on tooth loss. In these studies we didn't pay attention to the impact of perio on diabetes treatment, or prematurity, or anything else - just how many teeth were lost. Eliminating variables is usually important for study design and validity, and what you did was focus on the performance of anchors in one commonly encountered sea bed. Nothing more, and nothing less.

IMO, complaints that because your study didn't address anchor performance in other conditions is way off base.

What an objective person should be able to conclude from this study is that some anchors suck in soft mud (pun intended), and others perform well with the Fortress performing the best. Seems valid to me.

Rex wrote:

Well Ted who is right and who is wrong bares no significance to me, we saved a life, how bloody good was that, the lady she lives-convince her it was anchor Rhode and not the Sarca that saved her life? You may be right, the Sarca users must have been intelligent yachtsman as none of them dragged due to Rhode length I suppose, Ted you have a good name, it too was my father’s—he was a septic if ever there was one. If you are not convinced-- want more on our anchor performance, then recorded by the NRL in the U.K.- the rescue of a boat in force ten anchored on a Sarca documented in the U.K. with the events leading up to it recorded on their radio and documented —let me know and I will pm the whole story to you and anyone else if interested. Look this Mermaid scene is not mine but there may be a good dollar in this for Noelex, put out a sign and photo of his mermaid when anchored --- stating, if you are not sure your anchor is set you can hire a mermaid to check. Maybe the idea will catch on—I would hate to see where it could lead to if competition gets stiff.
Regards Rex.

Rex calm down. I like your product, people speak highly of it on this forum, and I wish it had a significant presents in the USA. That being said, I think it safer to say that the captains who chose you product and anchored properly with sufficient scope survived through wise choices. Clearly the holding power of your anchor without adequate scope would have caused the boats to have been pulled under when the tsunami wave hit their boats.

Ted