Jump to content

Recommended Posts

These are the new kids, I guess, in next gen. Knock-downable like Mantus. I need a new next gen anchor.  

Rocna gone in Big Winds. 

Wonder if there's any significant difference? 

I want to get a Mantus next if not. They support sailors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mantus are good people.  Their connection to the sailing community is real and their stuff works.  I'm a satisfied customer 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, py26129 said:

Mantus are good people.  Their connection to the sailing community is real and their stuff works.  I'm a satisfied customer 

I'm not anchor shopping but checked out their site for the heck of it.

This is the best ad video I've seen.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I never know what to think of these anchor tests 

I’ve used a Bruce anchor for the past thirty years and have anchored in extreme , chain breaking , many boats washed ashore conditions 

no complaints , Bruce is a good anchor 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bmiller said:

I'm not anchor shopping but checked out their site for the heck of it.

This is the best ad video I've seen.

 

@Panope Steve needs to do a vid like this in the pouring cold NW coast rain we all enjoy out here.  Hell, I’d come down and join him.  We’d be bare feet in the cold water, on a rock and barnacle-strewn beach, also slipping on some seaweed, just to make it real and fun :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

I never know what to think of these anchor tests 

I’ve used a Bruce anchor for the past thirty years and have anchored in extreme , chain breaking , many boats washed ashore conditions 

no complaints , Bruce is a good anchor 

But of course, you can't buy a Bruce anymore. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

I never know what to think of these anchor tests 

I’ve used a Bruce anchor for the past thirty years and have anchored in extreme , chain breaking , many boats washed ashore conditions 

no complaints , Bruce is a good anchor 

I remember when the Bruce came out in the 70's it was as much a quantum leap as the Rocna style was when it arrived.

There was no comparison with earlier anchors - weight, scope, speed of setting, veering were all a giant leap forward.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

@Panope Steve needs to do a vid like this in the pouring cold NW coast rain we all enjoy out here.  Hell, I’d come down and join him.  We’d be bare feet in the cold water, on a rock and barnacle-strewn beach, also slipping on some seaweed, just to make it real and fun :-)

Throw a few logs around the shingle, to replicate bottom conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bmiller said:

I'm not anchor shopping but checked out their site for the heck of it.

This is the best ad video I've seen.

 

There arn't many add videos, but...

Since a Danforth 12 pound has demonstrated more than 10 times the holding power of a 2.5-pound Mantus, clearly the test is rigged to demonstrate only one thing; anchor engagement on a hard sand beach, which has nothing to do with reality. Find a softer beach, different results.  I was doing a test using a 2-pound Guardian the other day, and I'm quite sure a 4x4 would not have moved it.

There is nothing wrong with puffing in an add. Fortress did the same thing, testing anchors in soft mud, which really favors Fortress (they outperfomed Mantus on a weight basis by about 25 times that time, I recall). But don't believe anything you see in any company's add. That's a safe starting point.

Owner comments and third party testing, fine, and Mantus does have some serious strengths. Good anchor, I've tested and used one a bunch, and I might well buy another. Google "anchor Test" to find stuff not on forums. Don't just rely on video ads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see Mantus making any claims in that video and I don't think anyone would draw any conclusions other than the dinghy anchor is able to engage in well-packed wet sand. For a dinghy anchor, this is potentially relevant, depending on how and where you use your dinghy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thinwater said:

There arn't many add videos, but...

Since a Danforth 12 pound has demonstrated more than 10 times the holding power of a 2.5-pound Mantus, clearly the test is rigged to demonstrate only one thing; anchor engagement on a hard sand beach, which has nothing to do with reality. Find a softer beach, different results.  I was doing a test using a 2-pound Guardian the other day, and I'm quite sure a 4x4 would not have moved it.

There is nothing wrong with puffing in an add. Fortress did the same thing, testing anchors in soft mud, which really favors Fortress (they outperfomed Mantus on a weight basis by about 25 times that time, I recall). But don't believe anything you see in any company's add. That's a safe starting point.

Owner comments and third party testing, fine, and Mantus does have some serious strengths. Good anchor, I've tested and used one a bunch, and I might well buy another. Google "anchor Test" to find stuff not on forums. Don't just rely on video ads.

Its just a fun ad. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, slug zitski said:

I never know what to think of these anchor tests 

I’ve used a Bruce anchor for the past thirty years and have anchored in extreme , chain breaking , many boats washed ashore conditions 

no complaints , Bruce is a good anchor 

Bruce anchors - the real ones - seem to consistently suck in every anchor test I have ever read yet have a very high real world rating from owners. I don't get it??????

The fake ones really do suck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, thinwater said:

There arn't many add videos, but...

Since a Danforth 12 pound has demonstrated more than 10 times the holding power of a 2.5-pound Mantus, clearly the test is rigged to demonstrate only one thing; anchor engagement on a hard sand beach, which has nothing to do with reality. Find a softer beach, different results.  I was doing a test using a 2-pound Guardian the other day, and I'm quite sure a 4x4 would not have moved it.

There is nothing wrong with puffing in an add. Fortress did the same thing, testing anchors in soft mud, which really favors Fortress (they outperfomed Mantus on a weight basis by about 25 times that time, I recall). But don't believe anything you see in any company's add. That's a safe starting point.

Owner comments and third party testing, fine, and Mantus does have some serious strengths. Good anchor, I've tested and used one a bunch, and I might well buy another. Google "anchor Test" to find stuff not on forums. Don't just rely on video ads.

Danforths have incredibly high holding power *once set*. Our relatively small Danforth we had during Hurricane Charlie (15-16-18 pound maybe???) not only didn't drag an inch, it took a Coast Guard patrol boat to get it unstuck, we couldn't budge it. It had dug down through the mud into solid clay. Where Danforths fail is either not being able to set or popping out with a wind shift. The Fortress aluminum version is all that magnified, incredibly high holding power once set and so bad at resetting they will sometimes end up on the surface planing :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, slug zitski said:

The authentic Bruce had sharp chisel like leading edges

many of the knockoffs are crude with blunt edges 

to improve the knockoffs  grab a grinder and sharpen the tip  

The knockoffs actually have geometry that is markedly different than genuine bruce anchors.    It’s not obvious at first glance, but if you look more closely it’s clear that the knock offs are really a cartoon of the original.  
 

as far as testing vs real world, I have to agree, my Bruce never let me down for 20 years before I lost it. Granted the vast majority of this was in mud l, which that anchor loves, but I did encounter all types of substrate without issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eliboat said:

as far as testing vs real world, I have to agree, my Bruce never let me down for 20 years before I lost it. Granted the vast majority of this was in mud l, which that anchor loves, but I did encounter all types of substrate without issue.

This must be why so many still have CQRs. That or they don't read the literature. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once had a genuine Bruce. Good until you found any weed near the bottom...

Or when it rolls off the deck unshackled when changing anchor (at the bottom in Derrynane Harbour if anyone wants one)

 

BB

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Bruce anchors - the real ones - seem to consistently suck in every anchor test I have ever read yet have a very high real world rating from owners. I don't get it??????

The fake ones really do suck.

I bought mine (genuine Bruce, 20 kg.) on the advice of someone with a very similar boat/weight to mine, and a highly experienced sailor, who after circumnavigating, cruised several years all the way up to Spitsbergen in the Arctic. So, seemed like a good endorsement for the anchor.  We never had any problems with it in over 10 years.  (Snagged on the bottom and lost two years ago.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

This must be why so many still have CQRs. That or they don't read the literature. 

Well, I’ve had  plenty of experience with CQRs, and I think they’re pretty horrid anchors.  Yes they’ll hold eventually, but setting accurately and not resetting reliably is just a fact with those things.  Bottom line, it’s the only anchor I’ve ever gotten into trouble with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I started learning about boats, CQR's seemed like a bad idea at first glance.

You want an anchor to dig in and stop, not plow a furrow in the bottom.

The shovel shapes of the latest anchors makes a lot more sense.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Spent years hanging 20 ton off a CQR, never a problem apart from thick sea grass. Had an 83 footer hanging on a CQR in the red sea, 5 days of 50 gusting to 70, no problem. Although the chain was more like solid bar when pulled up.

I wonder how much is just not having the skills to set anchors and wanting something that just be tossed over the side and works.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Spent years hanging 20 ton off a CQR, never a problem apart from thick sea grass. Had an 83 footer hanging on a CQR in the red sea, 5 days of 50 gusting to 70, no problem. Although the chain was more like solid bar when pulled up.

I wonder how much is just not having the skills to set anchors and wanting something that just be tossed over the side and works.

I reckon it's mostly about seabed type. 

CQR in its preferred bottom(s) is a good anchor.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Panope said:

I reckon it's mostly about seabed type. 

CQR in its preferred bottom(s) is a good anchor.

Steve

Apart from sea grass the only other problem was soft mud. Danforth held, but the wind swung and up she came. Maybe I just lucked out on the bottom choice...

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Apart from sea grass the only other problem was soft mud. Danforth held, but the wind swung and up she came. Maybe I just lucked out on the bottom choice...

Where many of us sail the boat swings to the tide most of the time rather than the wind. That obviously changes on a regular basis, and at least once while you hope to be asleep. An anchor that reliably resets is important. The set and reset behaviour of the CQR wasn't the best.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, European Bloke said:

Where many of us sail the boat swings to the tide most of the time rather than the wind. That obviously changes on a regular basis, and at least once while you hope to be asleep. An anchor that reliably resets is important. The set and reset behaviour of the CQR wasn't the best.

 

Fair enough, had plenty of similar circumstances without problem. Never having tried other anchors in anger I will have to accept others experiences with the new versions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We set a CQR in soft silty mud in a cove near Brisbane in 30+ knots over the deck.  Maybe 10 feet of water under the keel.  Tried it with 7 to 1 scope, dragged across the cove.  Motored back up, 10 to 1 scope.  Tide was going out, so only 6’ of water under the keel.  Dragged across the cove.  Tried again, even more scope and less water.  Dragged.  Motored back up, put the CQR back on the bottom, and held enough throttle to keep the boat in place until the tide ran out and we grounded.  (2 hulls, no worries.). Lovely parallel grooves across the cove bottom.  Walked the backup Danforth up to weather, 10 to 1 scope, stomped it into the bottom.  Tide came back in the night, still blowing hard.  Boat never moved an inch, and we had to motor right up onto the Danforth the next day to wrestle it out of the bottom.  

I like Delta Quickset anchors a lot—seem to hold well in a variety of bottoms.  Never tried a Rocna.  Definitely not a fan of CQRs, although i suspect they work fine in harder mud and rocks.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 20kg Rocna now on my 40'er and have watched lots of boats slowly flow by dragging Deltas and CQRs in less than 30 kts. I had a 20kg Bruce (real kind) on my 46', 35,000 lb Ericson with 50' of 5/16 chain and never dragged that one either, even though the book says that's not properly sized for that much boat. If I could snag a real Bruce as a backup I would in a heartbeat but the Rocna has also been lights out. I haven't tried it on a weedy bottom though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a hard time with a CQR in the BVIs. The only way to reliably get it set was with me diving down on it with a tennis ball. When I had the anchor in my hands with the tip in the bottom I would let the ball go and the crew would see it pop up and back down on the anchor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I had a hard time with a CQR in the BVIs. The only way to reliably get it set was with me diving down on it with a tennis ball. When I had the anchor in my hands with the tip in the bottom I would let the ball go and the crew would see it pop up and back down on the anchor.

'Nuff said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2021 at 5:41 PM, Bilge Boy said:

Once had a genuine Bruce. Good until you found any weed near the bottom...

Or when it rolls off the deck unshackled when changing anchor (at the bottom in Derrynane Harbour if anyone wants one)

 

BB

I'm relieved to learn I'm not the only one to have done that ! Only once.

 

Unfortunate, we are way off the topic of Viking anchor experiences!:unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked at their site and have a question for anyone that knows these anchors;

What is the purpose of that "bottle opener" hook on the shank?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

This thingy?

ffee2447b152494b43d9816faaea83c8_XL.jpg

Not a hint of a clue. 

To cut thru pesky underwater cables you might snag.

Whereupon the  "all chain vs. mixed chain-and-nylon" rode debate becomes rather  germane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Diarmuid said:

To cut thru pesky underwater cables you might snag.

Whereupon the  "all chain vs. mixed chain-and-nylon" rode debate becomes rather  germane.

First thing I thought of was that it looked like that could be the purpose, except that a) it doesn't look sharp and b) that would be a stupid thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

I just looked at their site and have a question for anyone that knows these anchors;

What is the purpose of that "bottle opener" hook on the shank?

Surely it's for retaining a recovery device for better inline pull ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MikeJohns said:

Surely it's for retaining a recovery device for better inline pull ?

That's the purpose of the hole at the L of the shank isn't it? A trip line?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

That's the purpose of the hole at the L of the shank isn't it? A trip line?

The fixed hole requires a fixed float.  Their can-opener retrieval is pretty smart -- check the website for details.  It allows you to get a trip line onto the anchor after the fact (pulling it down over your anchor line) instead of having to deploy it everytime.  I think this is a pretty smart innovation.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MikeJohns said:

Surely it's for retaining a recovery device for better inline pull ?

 

A  common method to break the anchor out of a coral head , rock ledge  or fixed mooring  is with a chain or wire loop 

 You take a one meter length of chain , form a chain loop  around the anchor rode 

... shackle this loop of chain  to a retrieving line .....

then let this  loop chain assembly  glide down the chain  and  over the stock 

You then maneuver  the boat over the anchor and  pull out the anchor backwards with the retrieving line 

the cutout in the stock helps keep the chain loop in place as you maneuver the boat over the stuck anchor 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

That's the purpose of the hole at the L of the shank isn't it? A trip line?

Different functions, Trip lines unstick an anchor by breaking suction. Lifting the back and letting the water down the low pressure side. They aren't recovery lines.

In a rock crevice recovery is only via a ring or chain let down the rode and a powerful jerk . Unless the rock or coral breaks, only inline pull gets the anchor out of a crevice without turning it into a pretzyl. 

 

 

Edit: SZ just beat me to it

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alex W said:

The fixed hole requires a fixed float.  Their can-opener retrieval is pretty smart -- check the website for details.  It allows you to get a trip line onto the anchor after the fact (pulling it down over your anchor line) instead of having to deploy it everytime.  I think this is a pretty smart innovation.

The Two holes  in  aft edge of the stock 

top hole is a utility hole ... anchor tie down , breakout rig or a   bouy 

the bottom hole is for a tandem anchor 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a rock crevice I think you'd be best to dive on it and shackle the recovery rode on to the shank directly. Then you can get a better inline pull otherwise the roll bar defeats it somewhat.  Or it in turn gets mangled.

I've seen many  anchors stuck in coral and it's common in scoured sandstone estuary bottoms. You can get to them but they are firmly wedged .

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MikeJohns said:

In a rock crevice I think you'd be best to dive on it and shackle the recovery rode on to the shank directly. Then you can get a better inline pull otherwise the roll bar defeats it somewhat.  Or it in turn gets mangled.

I've seen many  anchors stuck in coral and it's common in scoured sandstone estuary bottoms. You can get to them but they are firmly wedged .

If you’re anchoring in known foul ground , it best to rig breakout lashings before you drop anchor 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OPAL said:

No complaints with the Bruce, great anchor, originally designed for the offshore oil industry.

 

I found the Bruce performed worse than the CQR it was supposed to replace, was very reluctant to set/reset properly at times. 

In hard sand I could only trust it if we could see it.  We went back to the CQR as the main working anchor . 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OPAL said:

No complaints with the Bruce, great anchor, originally designed for the offshore oil industry.

Bruce-6000 kgs-Falklands.jpg

Yup 

And it’s shape , storage , makes it perfect for clients who wont tolerate ground tackle interfering with sail handling 

stem and sprit launched is typical for a Bruce 

great anchor 

AADDFD31-A204-4DB8-83AA-2A2578523BE0.jpeg

CA86D560-AEFA-4C1C-94D5-126759E806B0.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, slug zitski said:

Yup 

And it’s shape , storage , makes it perfect for clients who wont tolerate ground tackle interfering with sail handling 

stem and sprit launched is typical for a Bruce 

great anchor 

 

 

We were given one ! We tried it for a few months of weekend coastal sailing and gave up.   

In hard bottoms it would often only partially set.  Backing down and it'd seem to be set but diving on it I'd find it hadn't rotated in and was on it's side.  Then a good pull astern instead of setting it properly would always break it out. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MikeJohns said:

We were given one ! We tried it for a few months of weekend coastal sailing and gave up.   

In hard bottoms it would often only partially set.  Backing down and it'd seem to be set but diving on it I'd find it hadn't rotated in and was on it's side.  Then a good pull astern instead of setting it properly would always break it out. 

And yet, like the CQR, folks swear by 'em and always respond that the key is knowing how to set them. tenor.gif

 

However, I suspect this is the real reason for this particular vessel's owner's choice: AADDFD31-A204-4DB8-83AA-2A2578523BE0.jpeg

 

Obviously, my buddy Bruce has one. I haven't bothered to ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

And yet, like the CQR, folks swear by 'em and always respond that the key is knowing how to set them. 

They do say that.  But, I think the real key is using them in a substrate in which they are suited.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be curious to know what the 'recovery notch' on the Viking does for load path and stress risers. That forward edge of the shank sees maximum tensile force (after the dogleg vertex); the bottle opener interrupts that path quite a lot. It narrows the effective span of the shank by 1.5 inches and renders additional  width below it structurally moot. Might reduce the shank's torsional strength considerably, too. There are a couple clever peeps on this board with load heat-map software.... ;)

Somewhat like the rock slot on the Manson Supreme (which we own, but I could do w/out the slot). A clever feature you might use once or twice, but every other time what you really want in your shank is MOAR STEEL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Diarmuid said:

what you really want in your shank is MOAR STEEL.

Well, thar's steel and other steel. I did a quick look. It's not green apples to green apples but my read is that Viking claims about equal the holding power @ half the anchor weight of Mantus.

eg: Mantus 25 ... as "working anchor" for up to 30' ~ 11K disp ... actual anchor weight ~ 25lbs

Viking 7 ........"charter service" winds to 30 for 30' ~ 15K  .............actual anchor weight: ~12lbs

Viking states their steel is F700.

Mantus:  Shanks HT ASTM 514 steel. Flukes mild steel A36 ish. 

Both steels are apparently "high yield." 

On an everyday basis, I'd rather haul up chain and 12# than chain and 25#.

I'm the last person to ask about engineering stuff. What say you guys who work for a living?

One other thought. I don't want to reread the thread but I think the Viking guy dropped a "the other guy's stuff is Chinese" bomb.

Well, in the Viking stuff, I read ~ "The Viking is the most convenient price." That sounds like a Chinessy translation to me.

Lest we forget, the Chinese will build to whatever spec ya want to pay for.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Well, thar's steel and other steel. I did a quick look. It's not green apples to green apples but my read is that Viking claims about equal the holding power @ half the anchor weight of Mantus.

eg: Mantus 25 ... as "working anchor" for up to 30' ~ 11K disp ... actual anchor weight ~ 25lbs

Viking 7 ........"charter service" winds to 30 for 30' ~ 15K  .............actual anchor weight: ~12lbs

Viking states their steel is F700.

Mantus:  Shanks HT ASTM 514 steel. Flukes mild steel A36 ish. 

Both steels are apparently "high yield." 

On an everyday basis, I'd rather haul up chain and 12# than chain and 25#.

I'm the last person to ask about engineering stuff. What say you guys who work for a living?

One other thought. I don't want to reread the thread but I think the Viking guy dropped a "the other guy's stuff is Chinese" bomb.

Well, in the Viking stuff, I read ~ "The Viking is the most convenient price." That sounds like a Chinessy translation to me.

Lest we forget, the Chinese will build to whatever spec ya want to pay for.  

 

Blue Crab,

I have new information about a 12lb. Viking that you may find important.  I will not release the info without a full explanation. 

I hope to have the video ready next Saturday.

-----------------------

Regarding the holding power claim by Viking,  it is seabed dependent.  In my "sandy mud" test area, the 12lb. Viking did have perhaps double (I cant recall exactly) the holding power of a 13lb. Mantus.  However, in the "Soft Mud", holding power was the same.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Diarmuid said:

I'd be curious to know what the 'recovery notch' on the Viking does for load path and stress risers. That forward edge of the shank sees maximum tensile force (after the dogleg vertex); the bottle opener interrupts that path quite a lot. It narrows the effective span of the shank by 1.5 inches and renders additional  width below it structurally moot. Might reduce the shank's torsional strength considerably, too. There are a couple clever peeps on this board with load heat-map software.... ;)

Somewhat like the rock slot on the Manson Supreme (which we own, but I could do w/out the slot). A clever feature you might use once or twice, but every other time what you really want in your shank is MOAR STEEL.

Certainly reduces the strength and a cutout hole more central would be just as much use if pre-rigging a recovery line, or diving to attach same.

But if the design meets any class society HHP or SHHP rating the structural design is also checked by the class society. Although having said that, the loads applied are not arduous for example HHP is just twice the holding of an equivalent weight stockless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panope said:

Blue Crab,

I have new information about a 12lb. Viking that you may find important.  I will not release the info without a full explanation. 

I hope to have the video ready next Saturday.

-----------------------

Regarding the holding power claim by Viking,  it is seabed dependent.  In my "sandy mud" test area, the 12lb. Viking did have perhaps double (I cant recall exactly) the holding power of a 13lb. Mantus.  However, in the "Soft Mud", holding power was the same.

Steve

Looking forward to that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...