# Anchor Wars - In Search of the Lost Truth.



## tdw

Ok now ... This is a topic that has been unmercifully hammered out principally in the YBW forums (post count off the scale) and also in a lively thread over at AS. 

Really there is no need for more of the same here but there seems to be a couple of elephants still sitting in the corner and maybe we should try and get some answers. 

I'm not going to refer to threads on other forums, really that is somewhat pointless.

Read on if you dare.


----------



## tdw

Brian from Fortress stated ..



> 1. The Rocna anchor did not "win" the West Marine test, the results of which were reported in Sail, Yachting Monthly, and Power & MotorYacht magazines which Rocna has been falsely claiming since October 2006.
> 
> 2. The Rocna anchor did not have "40% greater holding power than the next best anchor" in this test as they have falsely claimed since then as well.
> 
> 3. Rocna falsely claimed that they possessed RINA certifications for their anchors which they clearly did not.
> 
> 4. Craig Smith of Rocna purchased the domain name of a deceased competitor (Alain Poiraud) and this domain name is now pointed to a web site where this deceased competitor's product (Spade) is being denigrated.
> 
> Based on the above, and with these facts known, why anyone would consider purchasing the product of a company with so little integrity, or would even attempt to defend them, is incomprehensible.......no matter how great their product might be.
> 
> A very serious issue now has yet to be resolved, and that is the composition of the steel material that Rocna is using for their Chinese anchors. Despite Rocna's claims, which people have trouble believing for obvious reasons, there is a great concern that this Chinese steel material is inferior to the steel used previously with the NZ and Canadian made anchors.


1. Did Rocna really claim to have "won" this battle or did they merely claim that the test showed that Rocna had gained the highest average holding power - maximum before release ?

2. In that test did the report say that Rocna had an average holding power of 40% higher than nearest rival ?

3. It seems this may be the case but is it black and white ?

4. Is this true or was the domain purchased well before Alain Poiraud's death ? Who actually now owns this domain, Craig Smith or Peter Smith ?

Brian, you offered to post the real Sail results. Please do so. A version of the Sail report was on the Rocna web site but has apparently been removed. I'd also like to see Sail's comments on the supposed Rocna falsification.

My quote is merely part of Brian's original post which can be found in the Crib Notes thread.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/720140-post37.html

Further ..

Isn't it true that no proof has been offered as to Rocna using inferior grade metal ? The original claimant "Whalebone" has been outed as a disgruntled ex Rocna employee and has been strangely silent in offering his claimed proof.

Is it fair to claim that Rocna "falsified test results and certifications" and if so why ?

The questions raised are quite damning of Rocna and of Craig Smith. I think its fair that we get the answers even if those answers do in fact damn Rocna and/or CS.


----------



## Craig Smith

tdw said:


> 1. Did Rocna really claim to have "won" this battle or did they merely claim that the test showed that Rocna had gained the highest average holding power - maximum before release ?


This is the graph that seems to irritate the competition:
www.rocna.com/rocna-world/rock-solid-test-results/

The data is from the original main SAIL graph, which is here:
www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/independent-performance-testing.php
(On that graph the bars are in green).



tdw said:


> 2. In that test did the report say that Rocna had an average holding power of 40% higher than nearest rival ?


Max Before Releasing (average holding power) data off the graph:
Rocna - 4800 lb
Spade - 3300 lb
...



tdw said:


> 3. It seems this may be the case but is it black and white ?


SAIL published several other charts on following pages under a sidebar to illustrate certain points, such as effect on scope and effect of location. These charts take subsets of the data and don't even include all anchors. However because they appear to show different results, they allow agendized individuals to try to muddy the waters.



tdw said:


> 4. Is this true or was the [ancora-latina.com] domain purchased well before Alain Poiraud's death ? Who actually now owns this domain, Craig Smith or Peter Smith ?


I do. It was purchased on 1st September last year. Alain died in February this year. The domain details are easily checked.

Additionally, the people at Ancora Latina always denied any connection whatsoever with Poiraud.



tdw said:


> Brian, you offered to post the real Sail results. Please do so. A version of the Sail report was on the Rocna web site but has apparently been removed.


It hasn't been removed, it's here:
www.rocna.com/rocna-world/independent-reviews/


----------



## LinekinBayCD

For what it is worth the Sail magazine was what originally started my interest in the Rocna. I still have the magazine laying around somewhere and when I get a chance I'll get it out and re-read it. However, my clear recollection is that the Rocna was the best performing anchor in the test and by more than just a marginal amount. That is why I began to consider buying the Rocna instead of the Manson Supreme in addition to my impression, right or wrong that all Manson's were knock offs.

Some time later I saw the synopsis of the Sail test on the Rocna website. I didn't compare what was on the site vs the Sail article line by line as it seemed to be consistent with what I remembered from the Sail article.


----------



## Minnewaska

Craig,

I understand that your Father invented the Rocna. It seems like an outstanding anchor. Whether true or not, I strongly suspect any current controversy over performance or manufacturing is going to be worked out.

Can you clarify why you engage in the defense today? Is it out of pride of your Father's work or do you have a financial interest in the success of Rocna in any way? Or other?


----------



## Craig Smith

Minnewaska said:


> Is it out of pride of your Father's work or do you have a financial interest in the success of Rocna in any way?


Both.


----------



## PCP

That's true that Rocna has been campaigning in a very dirty and unfair way against all the other brands on the market and claiming things that are not true regarding boat tests (there are a lot of independent tests made by dozens of European magazines to join to the few American ones).

It is also true that the Rocna is a good anchor. After reading most of those tests I would say that global impression is that the Rocna is the easiest anchor to get a hold on most bottoms, slightly better than the Spade and the one that works better with minimal rode. With normal rode the best holding power on most grounds belongs to the Spade.

I will buy a Spade for my next boat, probably because I have used a Spade for almost 10 years and I have not reasons to complain, except have to being awake at night during blows to dodge all the other boats that were dragging towards me . But I think that I would be also very well served with a Rocna.

About test magazines results, they quote some on the Spade site:

SPADE anchor by Press - Ancre Spade Sword Skrew - Ancres haute performance -

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

Not an anchor engineer here, but the Rocna just looks like a spade with a roll bar. Its hard to imagine how that would make it less effective, although, I wouldn't guarantee it to be more effective.


----------



## PCP

Minnewaska said:


> Not an anchor engineer here, but the Rocna just looks like a spade with a roll bar. Its hard to imagine how that would make it less effective, although, I wouldn't guarantee it to be more effective.


One of the things I have learned looking at all those boat tests (with lots of anchors) is that almost similar anchors can have very different behaviors.

If you look well they have common points but they have also differences and not only on the roll bar:

For Those About To Rocna&#8230;

Description - Ancre Spade Sword Skrew - Ancres haute performance -

This one looks more like a Spade and it is American, but I never herd about it. It looks good.

Ultra Anchors | Stainless Steel Anchors | Quickline USA

Regards

Paulo


----------



## pdqaltair

LinekinBayCD said:


> ...my impression, right or wrong that all Manson's were knock offs.


All anchors are evolutions. The Rocna is a step forward, perhaps the best overall design at this time, but...

* The angles are not unique. If you look at just on half of a Northill anchor, for example, it looks pretty similar. I had a genuine Norhill on my last boat and it's setting behavior was very much like the Rocna (other problems).
* The shank obviously came from Delta and Bruce, as well as some others.
* The roll bar, perhaps, came from Bugel. A very similar anchor that I believe is a bit older.
* The attitude, perhaps from Fortress laugher ).
* The Manson tests better than Rocna on occasion. Though It seems probable there was some copying, it is also possible there are some improvements. I do wish they would lose the second slot; pointless and actually costing them some sales, I think.

Good anchors. I just they would lighten up and realize that happy customers (both Fortress and Rocna) speak loudest.


----------



## Don L

PCP said:


> That's true that Rocna has been campaigning in a very dirty and unfair way against all the other brands on the market and claiming things that are not true regarding boat tests


I don't know if I agree that Rocna did/is doing this. But I will say that I feel a certain person does on this and other forum sites, which in the end was 1 of reasons I got something else when it was all over.


----------



## PCP

*Quote:
Originally Posted by PCP 
That's true that Rocna has been campaigning in a very dirty and unfair way against all the other brands on the market and claiming things that are not true regarding boat tests*



Don0190 said:


> I don't know if I agree that Rocna did/is doing this. *But I will say that I feel a certain person does on this and other forum sites*, which in the end was 1 of reasons I got something else when it was all over.


I was only agreeing with what the OP had said about the issue on the beginning of this thread.

Now do you care to explain what you mean with your post? You are referring to me? You are talking about what? What other sites? *You are accusing me of doing an unfair and dirty campaign? About what? On behalf of whom?*

I really wait an explanation because you are slandering me and I am not used to that!


----------



## tdw

PCP said:


> *Quote:
> Originally Posted by PCP
> That's true that Rocna has been campaigning in a very dirty and unfair way against all the other brands on the market and claiming things that are not true regarding boat tests*
> 
> I was only agreeing with what the OP had said about the issue on the beginning of this thread.
> 
> Now do you care to explain what you mean with your post? You are referring to me? You are talking about what? What other sites? *You are accusing me of doing an unfair and dirty campaign? About what? On behalf of whom?*
> 
> I really wait an explanation because you are slandering me and I am not used to that!


Paulo, I'm not sure about his wording but I doubt very much that Don0190 was referring to you. My guess he is saying that he did not buy a Rocna because of the attitude of a certain someone not too far removed from Rocna itself.


----------



## PCP

Sorry Don..... assuming Andrews is right.

I guess that I am a bit fed up about the harsh discussion on another thread and I was kind of seeing that beginning again.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> Good anchors. I just they would lighten up and realize that happy customers (both Fortress and Rocna) speak loudest- PDQAltair


True statement +1

I agree wholeheartedly

Dave


----------



## blt2ski

Paulo,

I saw Don typing saying the same as Andrew, meaning another "person" related to the Rocna family if you will is doing the campaigning if you will on the Rocna behalf. You did not specify the whom if you will. I do not see Don trying to slander you, only agreeing with a sub note as to they who and why.

marty


----------



## T34C

tdw said:


> 1. Did Rocna really claim to have "won" this battle or did they merely claim that the test showed that Rocna had gained the highest average holding power - maximum before release ?


Is there a difference?



tdw said:


> Isn't it true that no proof has been offered as to Rocna using inferior grade metal ? The original claimant "Whalebone" has been outed as a disgruntled ex Rocna employee and has been strangely silent in offering his claimed proof.


To the best of my knowledge this allegation against "whalebone" has not been proven and certainly not to any degree that would hold up in court. It could very well be true, or it could simply be an effort to discredit someone before they present damning evidence about a company and its products. Neither has been vetted to my knowledge.


----------



## T34C

TDW- In light of Craig's post stating that he benefits finically from the sale of Rocna anchors, and the fact that it appears he has been asked to remove is affiliation with Rocna from his signature by the company, does he have a duty to disclose his association? (Its been a while since I reviewed the rules of use here.)


----------



## Don L

PCP said:


> *Quote:
> I really wait an explanation because you are slandering me and I am not used to that!*


*

Wasn't talking about you at all, lighten up!*


----------



## smackdaddy

T34C said:


> TDW- In light of Craig's post stating that he benefits finically from the sale of Rocna anchors, and the fact that it appears he has been asked to remove is affiliation with Rocna from his signature by the company, does he have a duty to disclose his association? (Its been a while since I reviewed the rules of use here.)


Hey T! Welcome to SquirrelNet dude! Heh-heh.

So far it looks like the mods here have everything under control.


----------



## tdw

T34C said:


> TDW- In light of Craig's post stating that he benefits finically from the sale of Rocna anchors, and the fact that it appears he has been asked to remove is affiliation with Rocna from his signature by the company, does he have a duty to disclose his association? (Its been a while since I reviewed the rules of use here.)


You have to say that Craig is somewhat up against it here. On the one hand Rocna themselves have asked him not to claim "affiliation" , on the other he is supposed to acknowledge any commercial relationship.

Crikey, I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for the poor bugger.

rgds

TD "Chip" W - SailNutter.


----------



## blt2ski

It may be that Graig still owns a lot of stock, but does not get a paycheck, hence the how he benefits, but is being asked to remove affiliation due to not working there. 

marty


----------



## T34C

smackdaddy said:


> Hey T! Welcome to SquirrelNet dude! Heh-heh.
> 
> So far it looks like the mods here have everything under control.


I couldn't remember how the rules here handled those kinds of disclosures. Also interested how they would handle it as I'm trying to figure out how to deal with it at AS. (If CS decides to make another appearance.) As TD- points out, CS seems to have gotten himself between a rock and a hard place.

As you point out, they have done a very good job of allowing this to keep rolling along without completely jumping the shark.


----------



## BrianFortress

*Rocna Mis-representation*

Unfortunately, Sailnet does not allow you to attach Excel files so I am unable to attach the spreadsheet that I received from Chuck Hawley of West Marine with the pull by pull results for each anchor at the three test locations.

If you would like to review this detailed spreadsheet, I would be glad to e-mail to you, please just send me a PM with your address.

This is what Bill Springer, who wrote the test story for Sail magazine, recently had to say in his blog about Rocna's fraudulent claim that their anchor "had 40% more holding power than the next best anchor tested" :

_"I've not heard Rocna's claims directly, but I can say that neither the data, nor the report, says that the Rocna had "40% greater holding power than the next best anchor tested."_

Below is Bill's blog with more about this test:
Bill Springer's Sailboat Stories: Which Anchor Holds Best? 14 Anchors Are Put To The Test


----------



## BrianFortress

*Charts from West Marine test*

Here is a sampling from the West Marine spreadsheet noted above. I have included only the part with Fortress compared to the Rocna, and as you will note, the Rocna did NOT out-perform the Fortress in this test.

Also, I have attached a section of the test notes from the New Brighton location, where the Rocna anchor benefited by a false pull reading at that location.

This false pull inflated Rocna's "peak strain" numbers, which they have chosen to ignore in their marketing efforts.

I have also attached other magazine charts from this test which Rocna has chosen to ignore as well, which also prove that Rocna did not "win" this test.

By the way, what is an Anchorsmith?

Best regards,
Brian
Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## tommays

Well

At least i no longer wonder why we never had and issue with the Fortress


----------



## BrianFortress

*Rocna RINA certification fraud*

Recently on Rocna's web site until the fraud was exposed:

*Rocna classification and certification*

The Rocna anchor range has RINA type approval and SHHP classification. Its facilities are RINA approved and individual anchor certification can be provided on request. RINA is a member of the IACS and the Rocna classification will be accepted by all other notable societies including Lloyd's, DNV, Bureau Veritas, ABS, and others as equivalent with their own rules.

*What Rocna CEO Steve Bambury admitted on the Anything Sailing forum:
*
We've now completed all of the seabed testing, proof load testing, welding testing and material testing required to obtain certification of the design of the Rocna itself and the manufacturing facility. It's now a matter of all the reports being processed by RINA for final certification. We will of course be publishing the certificates as soon as they become available.

Here is the follow up comment from Maine Sail, who exposed this to the thread on the forum:

_So above YOU STATE and ADMIT you DO NOT yet have the actual "certification" but your OWN web site says it "CAN BE PROVIDED".. I don't know about where you come from but here in the US that is considered a pure UNADULTERATED LIE !!!!!!

Not to mention the many times Craig has claimed "RINA" or "RINA Obtained" which you've now admitted you don't technically have "yet"..._

If you wish to see the actual post, it is 353 on this web page below:http://www.anything-sailing.com/show...s.-Rocna/page9

Rocna cannot produce any form of a certification from RINA, quite simply because one does not exist.


----------



## blt2ski

Hi Brian,

I have another question re your anchors, but do not to post it in this thread, can I PM or get an email from you.

Thank you
marty


----------



## PCP

The complete test on the Yachting world magazine:

https://www.marinestore.nl/download...en/35/Yachting monthly ankertest dec 2006.pdf


----------



## Classic30

BrianFortress said:


> Rocna cannot produce any form of a certification from RINA, quite simply because one does not exist.


Brian, that would *seem* to be the case, but that doesn't mean the Rocna anchors have failed to pass RINA's testing or are deficient in some way - simply that their marketing jumped the gun by a year or three. 

As someone who was involved in the "discussions" you refer to over at A-S, the summary of facts as they ended was:

1. Rocna used to manufacture in NZ and Canada and have since shifted operations to China.

2. Rocna obtained a statement from RINA in 2010 confiming anchor samples across their range met the requirements for SHHP seabed (holding-power, etc) tests. These tests were carried out in 2008.

3. Rocna do not (yet) have certification for their Chinese manufacturing facilities. Perhaps there are issues over there? No-one knows.. although there was a post or two about some kind of law-suit which may or may not have some bearing on the Certification delays.

Therefore, although it is clear that Rocna's Chinese-made anchors do not have RINA Certification (yet), whether or not the NZ/Canada ones ever did is unknown: although the question was asked, no response has been given to date.

Yes, it does seem Fortress are the only one of the "Big 3" SHHP anchor manufacturers out there that can confirm Certification (good for you!)... but the Certificates on your web site are *still* out of date, even though you promised you'd update them!!!


----------



## BrianFortress

Hartley18 said:


> Yes, it does seem Fortress are the only one of the "Big 3" SHHP anchor manufacturers out there that can confirm Certification (good for you!)... but the Certificates on your web site are *still* out of date, even though you promised you'd update them!!!


Thanks for the not-so-gentle reminder.  Our web site is in the midst of an overhaul, and I will see if I can get the latest SHHP certificates updated in the meantime before the new site is launched. I would also be glad to e-mail them if you send me a PM with your address. I think the SHHP certificates we have are good through through 2012.


----------



## T34C

Hartley18 said:


> Brian, that would *seem* to be the case, but that doesn't mean the Rocna anchors have failed to pass RINA's testing or are deficient in some way - simply that their marketing jumped the gun by a year or three.


By that measure I guess I could say that I haven't failed to pass the NASA testing to become an astronaut either. But, claiming that when I haven't really taken said tests would just make me an ass-tro-not.


----------



## Classic30

T34C said:


> By that measure I guess I could say that I haven't failed to pass the NASA testing to become an astronaut either. But, claiming that when I haven't really taken said tests would just make me an ass-tro-not.


Have you started the training??

Rocna have confirmed they've been in discussions with RINA for some years now so they are at least going through the process (and Certification can take years to get, no-one will deny that). It's not necessarily their fault that the exams have been delayed.. and maybe they have failed a few.. but to claim to the world that they'd passed already, but haven't the wings to prove it? That's where they crashed and burned.


----------



## Classic30

BrianFortress said:


> Thanks for the not-so-gentle reminder.  Our web site is in the midst of an overhaul, and I will see if I can get the latest SHHP certificates updated in the meantime before the new site is launched. I would also be glad to e-mail them if you send me a PM with your address. I think the SHHP certificates we have are good through through 2012.


Thanks for the offer but I don't need them, Brian. What you have on your site tells me all I need to know, but I do wish other manufacturers (like Manson) would follow your example.

A suggestion for your web designer: PDF downloads are the best way to access certificates. Jpegs or html just gets messy and is difficult to forward on to others..


----------



## Siamese

This sensitivity as to whether Rocna has done a little fibbing on their website is just....odd? 

Ford used to fry people in their Pintos and then hid the data for years. Folks still buy Fords. 

Microsoft has engaged in some questionable marketing. They could buy Rocna ten times over with just their legal fees. Most of us still run Windows. 

At least a third of the ads on television are for products that don't do what they say. Another third at least fib a little...ever notice how many insurance companies are going to save you money?!?!huh?!?!

Compare a little Rocna fibbing to a human extremely well done in a Pinto and it doesn't seem so bad, does it? 

Until Craig, whatever his affiliation is, kill someone, let's just compare anchors and pick our fave.

Forums are funny. On the Fender Stratocaster guitar forum if you want to get things riled up just start a thread on the effect of body wood on the tone of and electric guitar. Gets ugly.

I figure, why should I get upset over some guy across the county, who I'll never meet, having a different opinion than me?


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm with you siamese.

I think one either sails, or argues about the minutiae of some pointy chunks of steel on every forum on the planet. Kind of hard to do both.

And I'm pretty sure the "Give a Damn Threshold" has long been passed.

Of course, I could be wrong. But that's almost...


----------



## BrianFortress

*Independent steel test results - Manson vs. Rocna*

After enduring a long running attack on their product in boating forums around the world by Rocna, Manson appears to be first in line to report the results of independent steel tests of Rocna's Chinese anchors vs their own:

Manson Anchors: Supreme Anchor high standards


----------



## PCP

The results from Rocna are not bad. The Mason is only slightly better in what regards tensile strength but I doubt that the small difference has any real meaning in real situations.

The problem here is an attitude problem, with Rocna claiming to be *"the ultimate solution"* and Fortress claiming to have the "*World's best anchors"* and Spade claiming to be the *"most reliable anchor"* and Mason claiming to be the *"world's finest anchor"*.

This is ridiculous and a bit of modesty would suit them all. Test results had shown that all 4 are very fine anchors, much better than old models and better than the others of their generation. We could look at the test results to see where each one excels (we can see that all have ups and downs).

For the ones that are interested I would also point a complete and more recent test (2009) made by the French. 11 anchors were tested (the Rocna was not) the Spade, The Fortress and Mason were tested among others.

Catalogue - Test et comparatif ANCRES Voiles et Voiliers 2009 - Sea Tech and Fun - Spade - (Version PDF) -5

Voiles et Voiliers : Equipement - De 150 à 890 euros, 11 ancres au banc d'essai : Toute la vérité sur les ancres

Here you can find a kind of resume of many tests made in French, but the numbers a speak for themselves. We can see that in soft mud the best is not any of the 4 but the Delta:

Hisse Et Oh - Divers bancs d'essais d' ancres


----------



## Maine Sail

BrianFortress said:


> After enduring a long running attack on their product in boating forums around the world by Rocna, Manson appears to be first in line to report the results of independent steel tests of Rocna's Chinese anchors vs their own:
> *
> Manson Anchors: Supreme Anchor high standards*


WOW !!!!!! Let me be the FIRST in-line to eat my own words then.. chomp Chomp.....

The words I am eating. I've been wrong before so this would not be the first time..


Maine Sail said:


> While I do actually agree with you Criag that the metallurgy incident is a fabricated *farse* I still don't think it has been "proven" to the doubters through a couple of photos.


Hmm... Seems fairly well substantiated now and perhaps not a "farse".. They even have a photo of the receipt where and when they bought the Rocna's to test.

Steve/Craig please note the DATES and how fast this testing was conducted... We're still waiting for your "proof".. Manson purchased the Rocna's for testing on 3/30/2011 and the testing certificate was dated 4/8/2011 a touch over a week is all it took....

The Tested Anchors (Photo Courtesy of Manson Anchors)

















I guess Manson got sick and tired of waiting for Rocna to "man-up" to their challenge and we now apparently know why Rocna chickened out..... 

 *The Manson Challenge To Rocna*
 
_*"If you would please bring down your anchor, we can test it on our calibrated and certified test jig. We have tested it against ours. We have videoed those tests. However in the interests of posting something that you will not say is made up, I welcome you to come here and we will video your face as we do the tests so the readers can see what eating your words after years of misinformation looks like.

Any time you would like to test your anchor we are here. Any time."

*_


Craig Smith said:


> _*Certainly nothing from Manson, the quality of their copies is abysmal.*
> 
> ***
> *it's often just edge-welded so the space between the sheets is effectively hollow. In addition to a ridiculous lack of strength, this has massive other implications.* _


Perhaps a public apology to Manson is in order here Craig?


----------



## Don L

Have we determined that Craig doesn't really speak for Ronca? Anyone who has read his comments a while knows he isn't going to say sorry etc


----------



## tommays

I don't know but around here there was a place called Anchor Welding in Farmingdale NY on route 109 that well welded anchors in massive quantities that look a lot like the Fortress 

While the owner passed away and its gone i was buying stuff there 40 years ago and i never saw a test or one break


----------



## Minnewaska

Is there anything about the Rocnas metallurgy results that suggests it is unsuitable for it's purpose? Even if Manson is better, does Rocnas pass the test? Ie. Do I care?


----------



## Maine Sail

Minnewaska said:


> Is there anything about the Rocnas metallurgy results that suggests it is unsuitable for it's purpose? Even if Manson is better, does Rocnas pass the test? Ie. Do I care?


I seriously doubt it matters much, but that is not the point. The point is that for 6+ years CS has maligned and defamed the Manson supreme as an "abysmal" quality product and it now appears these defamatory claims were un-true, like much else..


----------



## Minnewaska

I get the war between worlds, but it's really hard to follow when any of this matters to the consumers use of the anchor. A judgement could be made on ethics vs. enthusiasm, but I'm trying to stay focused on the product hanging off my bow and it's effectiveness for the purpose. It almost gets more confusing, the more one looks in to it.


----------



## smackdaddy

Maine I agree with with minne. This may be some huge issue to you but it's not to the general public. Like Siam says above, each of the manufacturers is claiming global superiority with their product when any mook knows that's crap. This whole thing is all a matter of small degrees when it comes to the cost and capability of an anchor.

To me the manufacturers that have jumped on and whipped up this Wagon of Whine in the forums are giving their brands a serious black eye. I personally don't buy from whiners.


----------



## BrianFortress

*Interesting Analysis*

There is a manufacturer of a very important of safety equipment aboard a boat who is duping the public by falsifying test results, certifications, and product materials.

And there are people, some of whom are also safety equipment manufacturers, who seek to expose this company for the benefit of the public.....and they are called whiners? I'll take that as a compliment.

Minne, on one of the Rocna anchor models they found a defect in the fluke casting. Let's say you are anchored up enjoying a nice day nearby other boats and a thunderstorm comes through with gusting 30-40 knot winds and the fluke breaks under the sudden load, and now you are aboard a floating missile. Hopefully you have a seconardy anchor that you can quickly deploy, but if not, then you could obviously be in a situation where you might damage your boat and others.

You may never be in that circumstance, but if you were, you would be depending on the integrity of the anchor company and their product, and hopefully it would pass the test.

Be safe,
Brian
Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## PaulfromNWOnt

Dude.... ever hear of Santa Claus? People have been lying to me for an awfully long time. I don't have real trust issues, but I have a hard time trusting lawyers, politicians, *AND SALESMEN!*

Is one product inferior to the other? Absolutely. Betcha a shiny penny that I could test any product to failure. Given the right circumstances, anything will give.

One more thing: The single most important piece of safety equipment any of us own sits under our hats, not on our bow. Mine tells me to listen to my gut, and my gut tells me that anyone trying to promote their product by criticizing another is likely hiding something.


----------



## Minnewaska

BrianFortress said:


> ....Minne, on one of the Rocna anchor models they found a defect in the fluke casting. Let's say you are anchored up enjoying a nice day nearby other boats and a thunderstorm comes through with gusting 30-40 knot winds and the fluke breaks under the sudden load, and now you are aboard a floating missile. Hopefully you have a seconardy anchor that you can quickly deploy, but if not, then you could obviously be in a situation where you might damage your boat and others


You'll be glad to know that I have one of yours in a bag in the anchor locker. In your scenario, I hope I get the motor on before we ground, because it will take me a bit to assemble.

I have a 75 lb stainless steel CQR on the bow, which I've actually never had trouble setting. However, when overnight on a cruise, we almost always take a mooring ball. This summer, on our two week cruise to Maine, we expect to do a bit more anchoring, therefore, all the winter research. It's the middle of April and I've been at this since November and honestly don't think I have any more clarity today then when I started.


----------



## BrianFortress

Minne,

I just sent you a PM with an e-mail message that I received from a sailor who was in a real life emergency situation, and if our product had failed him, the results would have been catastrophic.

And Paul, I understand the skepticism you might have and I welcome it. Its a valuable trait to have in today's day and age with so much nonsense coming at you from every direction.

Regards,
Brian 
Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## T34C

PaulfromNWOnt said:


> Dude.... ever hear of Santa Claus? People have been lying to me for an awfully long time. I don't have real trust issues, but I have a hard time trusting lawyers, politicians, *AND SALESMEN!*
> 
> Is one product inferior to the other? Absolutely. Betcha a shiny penny that I could test any product to failure. Given the right circumstances, anything will give.
> 
> One more thing: The single most important piece of safety equipment any of us own sits under our hats, not on our bow. Mine tells me to listen to my gut, and my gut tells me that anyone trying to promote their product by criticizing another is likely hiding something.


So can we assume that you are using a rock on a rope as your anchor of choice so as not to burden yourself with misleading salesmen and products that fail? Or, did you just make your own anchor? Didn't think so. If claims by company representatives and company printed material are unimportant to you because they are all misleading, what exactly DO you base your buying decisions on?


----------



## smackdaddy

BrianFortress said:


> There is a manufacturer of a very important of safety equipment aboard a boat who is duping the public by falsifying test results, certifications, and product materials.
> 
> And there are people, some of whom are also safety equipment manufacturers, who seek to expose this company for the benefit of the public.....and they are called whiners? I'll take that as a compliment.
> 
> Minne, on one of the Rocna anchor models they found a defect in the fluke casting. Let's say you are anchored up enjoying a nice day nearby other boats and a thunderstorm comes through with gusting 30-40 knot winds and the fluke breaks under the sudden load, and now you are aboard a floating missile. Hopefully you have a seconardy anchor that you can quickly deploy, but if not, then you could obviously be in a situation where you might damage your boat and others.
> 
> You may never be in that circumstance, but if you were, you would be depending on the integrity of the anchor company and their product, and hopefully it would pass the test.
> 
> Be safe,
> Brian
> Fortress Marine Anchors


Brian,

Look at this whole thing from the perspective of a typical prospective customer...one that doesn't know (or necessarily care) about all the technical/historical stuff you guys are arguing about. Also, as illustrated above, one that has a fair amount of skepticism regarding ALL marketing and sales techniques and language from ALL manufacturers.

First, from purely a PR perspective, how do you think your publicly "bashing" Rocna and its products (as a representative of Fortress) looks to this person? Especially since this prospect likely hasn't been following CS's every word for 6 years like you (and others) have. To you, you're "defending" your product against what you say is years of bashing. To the majority of people out there it looks just like what you're accusing CS of - bashing competitors. If you were smelling like a rose before because you'd not confronted him, you're not smelling that way anymore...even though you might have all the justification in the world to do this.

Second, one of the main arguments here, as you point out in your post, is the idea of "duping the public about important safety equipment aboard". Back to Siam's post...your website assures the public that yours are "The World's Best Anchors". Is this definitively and empirically true ? There is, literally, NO anchor out there that is better than yours in ANY situation whatsoever? Then you claim on the website that Fortress, specifically, is "Not just stronger, lighter!" Stronger than what? Lighter than what? (Yes, I see the aluminum versus steel info and the Myth/Fact page.) But, remember, you've already told me that your anchor is "The World's Best" (with no asterisk and fine print) - so I'm a little cautious at this point. Either that, or I believe you and buy your anchors because of your assurance that I'll never be able to find anything better anywhere in the world.

Looking at the graphs Maine posted above, the consumer could indeed reach the conclusion that the Fortress is a pretty awesome anchor - but it does show some weaknesses in certain areas - which would raise some questions as to your claims. Also, there's the whole idea behind the roll bar. I have a cheap-ass Danforth on my C27 - and if it settles upside down, I have to do some work to get it flipped over and finally bite. If I'm in amongst a bunch of boats like you point out above, I could be doing some damage before my Danforth sets - I never even get to test that fluke. At that point, a roll bar sounds pretty smart.

Look, all I'm saying is that if you want to bluster about "deceptive" marketing language and "denigrating" others' products, you need to be very, very careful that your house is perfectly clean - and not made of glass.

Most consumers are pretty smart. Smarter than most product pushers give them credit for. On the other hand, no product pusher should ever expect the average buyer to dig through dense metallurgy data to have to determine whether, in fact, that manufacturer does indeed have "The World's Best Anchor".


----------



## BrianFortress

Points well taken, and thanks for sharing.

Much appreciated,
Brian


----------



## T34C

smacky- From someone that has been following along with much of this for awhile I can't say I agree with your perspective on this, but I do find it interesting and frankly, well stated, however ironic coming from Mr. BFS.


----------



## smackdaddy

T34C said:


> smacky- From someone that has been following along with much of this for awhile I can't say I agree with your perspective on this, but I do find it interesting and frankly, well stated, however ironic coming from Mr. BFS.


My fee is $600/hr.


----------



## PaulfromNWOnt

T34C said:


> So can we assume that you are using a rock on a rope as your anchor of choice so as not to burden yourself with misleading salesmen and products that fail? Or, did you just make your own anchor? Didn't think so. If claims by company representatives and company printed material are unimportant to you because they are all misleading, what exactly DO you base your buying decisions on?


I'd take a picture and show you the rock, but they vary by season. Some places I'm putting out a 1.2 to 1 scope, so weight is more of a concern then grab. Sometimes two trees will keep me in place. The purpose of the rock isn't to eliminate salesmen from the equation, but to fill the need adequately.

Did I make my own anchor? Well only the rock one, but I did buy an el-cheapo danforth style knock off because it was lighter than the navy style that came with the boat. There was no salesman trying to influence me because it was early Saturday morning, and he was in another department.
I do however have a plan to make my own anchor, so I guess the answer is not yet.

What *do* I base my purchases on? Well in this case, good ole ******* engineering. I've got a 22 foot boat, so I shot for somewhere in the middle of the recommendations, and bought something that looked like it would stand up to a 4 pound mallet. If I had a 30 footer, then I should be able to beat on it with a 10 pound mallet, and drag it down a dirt road behind my truck for a couple of miles and only damage the finish. You don't want to know what I'd want to anchor a 40 footer.

Edit: I used the impeller from a commercial pump instead of a rock one year. Easier to tie onto, and didn't roll around in the boat.


----------



## Minnewaska

BrianFortress said:


> Minne,
> 
> I just sent you a PM with an e-mail message that I received from a sailor who was in a real life emergency situation, and if our product had failed him, the results would have been catastrophic.....


Got it. Great success story. He seemed to have it on the bow, rigged and ready to launch. Unfortunately, I do not, but it has given me some food for thought.

My *three page* spring commission list now has.... "assemble and check fit for Fortress on secondary bow roller". Unfortunately, I do not have much hope.


----------



## CapitainMike

*Looking for an anchor*

I am in the market for a new anchor and I am in Greece So I have been studying the forums for weeks and not only on this one. I have found that you can't go by websites you don't know who owns what sites.

I have looked at Spade, Spade I don't know if it exists anymore the information from them stopped after 1 mail about Oceane, Sword, (Oceane and Sword do not exist any more),

I made a Spade template template came from their website. The size reccomended was enormous, I think because their length dimensions do not work to well with their weight values so they are pushing you towards a heavier anchor.

It was to large altogether my boat is only 8.68 metres and is 3.58 tons unladen, add another ton for crew fuel food water outboard and all the bits and bobs. The Spade anchor reccomended was for a 6 ton boat. Goodbye Spade.

Spade told me that their sword anchor was still available in a few sizes but not the complete range. Following my reply to Spade requesting price, carriage and availability I heard no more. Goodbye Sword

Oceane was taken over by Spade and Ocean anchors are no more.
Buegel from Germany (patent expired) is now WASI Bugel it was supplied with its powerball chain connector but every where I went it is now an extra. Very Very large and expensive. WASI Buegel very hard to get hold of an original WASI Buegel VERY similar in many ways to Spade I did not like the write ups on the WASI Buegel though I know several people who have one and swear by them. There is one on a 30ft Sail boat in the local port now, but it is so large it cannot be brought in onto the foredeck over the bow roller. it just sits there with the powerball on the bow roller and swings.

Ultra, Ultra only do stainless steel and were in USA, that ruled them out. 
Rocna and Manson, both very similar in design but Rocna always knocking Manson on the Forums as you all know very well.
Rocna's Mediterranean distributors are in Greece and Italy, Greece is Levkas in Lefkada in the Ionian me I am in the Cyclades. I did not want to use the distributor in Levkas as I have used them before and I felt the results of our meeting left me in a very were undesirable position the reasons I won't go into here.

I contacted their Italian Distributor
I mailed Rocna and told them and they suggested their other distributor in Italy Indemar S.p.A.
So next stop was Italy,

The company Indemar S.p.A. 
Following to your request, please find here after our offer for:
1 x Rocna anchor 10kg. galvanised
Net price: Euro 265,00+20%VAT
Delivery time: at stock, subject to prior sales
Delivery terms: ex works (Incoterms 2000)
Transport costs with our courier TNT: Euro 153,00+20%VAT
Package: included
Payment: anticipate bank remittance

Looking forward to hearing from you soon,
Best regards

Cinzia Buffa
Indemar S.p.A.
Via Guido Rossa 42
16012 Busalla (GE)
Tel. +39 010 9641927
Fax +39 010 9641920
home
[email protected]

They wanted €153.00 + 20% VAT for the carriage alone, of a 10kg Rocnar and I would be responsible for the anchor as and when it left their premises with their courier TNT. I mailed Rocna but they could no/would not help. I could buy the same anchor in UK and the carriage would be £35.00 to my home in Greece.
So no way would I purchase from them so goodbye Indemar and Rocna.

Meanwhile I was still scouring forums and websites for information. If you are a serious sailor and you are not always tied up in a marina then your anchor is a very very important piece of equipment.

Manson were/are, I am still in contact very helpful both their MD Steve Mair and their VP/Sales & Marketing - Ned Wood could not do enough to help me. Polite, efficient, Helpful and Understanding.
In my eyes The Service makes them stand out above them all. Looking at their new website especially
Independent tests of both Manson and Rocna.

Tests Manson Anchors: Supreme Anchor high standards

Manson Anchors: the world's finest stainless steel and galvanised anchors
Manson Anchors: The world's leading anchor manufacturer 
The Manson Supreme independent test results 
Manson Anchors: Supreme Anchor high standards

I don't know if I have made complete sense. I am not saying that one anchor is better than another anchor you must draw your own conclusion I have only written here my findings as I see them. Remember the customer is King. Their profit is in your pocket you can always go some where else

I have purchased a Manson


----------



## PCP

Some videos that show how the Mason, Spade and Rocna work. The one from Rocna is the one that shows some misleading information, but after that they show the anchors at work.

I could not find any from the Fortress except one that is paid (French magazine online). I would like to see the Fortress rotating 90º. Maybe Brien can post one.

I add one from Kobra 2, an anchor that is considered in several tests as the better relation between effectiveness and price. Not as good as the best, but almost, at a fraction of the price.

YouTube - Rocna anchor - demonstration and comparison testing (English subtitles - no audio)

YouTube - Bob Bitchin finds the Manson Supreme Anchor

YouTube - Sea Tech and Fun prÃ©sente les Ancres SPADE

Voiles et Voiliers : Equipement - Kobra 2


----------



## CapitainMike

Thank you for your reply and the time it took to get the links.
You tube Rocna done that they were were not fair tests. Manson done that the tests looked OK except for the rock slot the point pivoted verticaly. Would not have happened so easily if it had been under a rock. Spade where are you going to get a road on the sea bed? all of the new Generation anchors with a roll bar will roll over on a road. The seabed is different. But I have heard they were good but most anchors will be extremely good if they are oversized, the anchor recommended for my boats length classed as a 6 ton boat its only 3.48 before loading. I had thought of the Kobra I did not know about the Kobra 2. On examination it seemed to take a long while to set. Did they say 12 metres, that's to long for me if it hops out. that's 24 metres before it resets. So as you know when you read my mail I now have a Manson and I am awaiting delivery. I will keep you posted with my findings.


----------



## T34C

Several of you slagged Fortress for their claim of "The World's Best Anchor". I just got a new Fortress recently and thought it might be helpful to let you know that all of their printed material and packaging actually says, "The Experts Agree.... The World's Best Anchor". You might think its just semantics, but if they have expert testimony that those experts do indeed believe Fortress to be the best anchor then their claims are absolutely correct when viewed in the whole.


----------



## PCP

T34C said:


> Several of you slagged Fortress for their claim of "The World's Best Anchor". I just got a new Fortress recently and thought it might be helpful to let you know that all of their printed material and packaging actually says, "The Experts Agree.... The World's Best Anchor". You might think its just semantics, but if they have expert testimony that those experts do indeed believe Fortress to be the best anchor then their claims are absolutely correct when viewed in the whole.


If someone can be called experts in what regarding anchors are the guys from West Marine.

*West Marine has been testing anchors for over 20 years, usually by joining forces with anchor manufacturers, boating magazines or non-profit boating groups. We even do a number of anchor tests every year*

They say on their web page regarding the last tests:

*Many newer designs worked better than the old familiar anchors. In particular, we were very impressed by the "roll bar" anchors like the Rocna, Manson Supreme, and Wasi. And the Spade, one of our favorites, continued to perform well. The two anchors with some aluminum in them, the Hydrobubble and the Fortress, also produced impressive holding power, especially considering their dramatically lighter weight.*

Would you say that they are saying that "the Fortress is the word's best Anchor"?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## T34C

Are you saying they are the only experts in the world? WorstMarine can't even manage the inventory of their own stores.


----------



## smackdaddy

T34C said:


> Several of you slagged Fortress for their claim of "The World's Best Anchor". I just got a new Fortress recently and thought it might be helpful to let you know that all of their printed material and packaging actually says, "The Experts Agree.... The World's Best Anchor". You might think its just semantics, but if they have expert testimony that those experts do indeed believe Fortress to be the best anchor then their claims are absolutely correct when viewed in the whole.


As you can see above, I had a back and forth with Brian on that. The Fortress website is what I was quoting. There are no asterisks or qualifications there. And that was my point. If the only place a consumer can readily see any of this qualification of the claim is on the packaging after they've bought it - well.

Anyway, my post above was not slagging. My point is that if there is going to be a vendor war, it should be a fair one. Semantics are the core of marketing. So you just have to be careful about them. For example, who are those "experts" that have "testified" that there is, definitively and empirically, no other anchor in the world that can compare with the Fortress in any condition whatsoever? See...another rabbit hole.

Fortress has done a great job of marketing...no doubt. Their SEO is top notch. Just Google "best anchor". And their anchor has done very well in the comparisons I've seen. So I'm personally not taking anything away from them at all.

But, I still hold that there are too many agendas and too many glass houses in these kinds of wars to simply take sides...or stoke fires.


----------



## john1066




----------



## T34C

smackdaddy said:


> As you can see above, I had a back and forth with Brian on that. The Fortress website is what I was quoting. There are no asterisks or qualifications there. And that was my point. If the only place a consumer can readily see any of this qualification of the claim is on the packaging after they've bought it - well.
> 
> Anyway, my post above was not slagging. My point is that if there is going to be a vendor war, it should be a fair one. Semantics are the core of marketing. So you just have to be careful about them. For example, who are those "experts" that have "testified" that there is, definitively and empirically, no other anchor in the world that can compare with the Fortress in any condition whatsoever? See...another rabbit hole.
> 
> Fortress has done a great job of marketing...no doubt. Their SEO is top notch. Just Google "best anchor". And their anchor has done very well in the comparisons I've seen. So I'm personally not taking anything away from them at all.
> 
> But, I still hold that there are too many agendas and too many glass houses in these kinds of wars to simply take sides...or stoke fires.


I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, more in general terms. The "The Experts Agree..." does also appear on the box the anchor comes in which you would see if buying at a retailer, but not if purchased on-line. I'm guessing that the beginning of the slogan got drop for some reason when they put the website together. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea for them to make sure it got added...?

I thought there was some merit to your comments and wanted to help clarify, even a bit.


----------



## PCP

T34C said:


> Are you saying they are the only experts in the world? WorstMarine can't even manage the inventory of their own stores.


Well, perhaps you know more than I do. I know that westmarine has done a lor of testing for them and for many reputable boat magazines like sail magazine and Yachting world and I thought that they were the ones that have tested more extensively. Perhaps not.

Can you tell me what are the EXPERTS that Fortress are quoting when the say they have said that the "The Fortress is the world's best anchor"?

The only other guys that I knew that have tested extensively a lot of anchors in several types of bootoms and pulling them from several directions where the French from the Magazine Voile et Voiliers with the collaboration of the French lifeguard. They did not have said that the Fortress was the best anchor. If there was a winner in that test was the Spade that managed to broke their measuring apparatus before they could drag the anchor

Voiles et Voiliers : Equipement - Crocher ou décrocher : 11 ancres au banc d'essai

So I am really curious, what experts are they talking about?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

T34C said:


> I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, more in general terms. The "The Experts Agree..." does also appear on the box the anchor comes in which you would see if buying at a retailer, but not if purchased on-line. I'm guessing that the beginning of the slogan got drop for some reason when they put the website together. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea for them to make sure it got added...?
> 
> I thought there was some merit to your comments and wanted to help clarify, even a bit.


Wow. I'm actually surprised. Thanks dude.


----------



## smackdaddy

john1066 said:


>


Now THAT'S a classic.! Did you do that?


----------



## john1066

Yes. I decided these forum anchor wars need a reallity check once in a while lest they get completely out of hand - and a picture is worth a thousand words.


----------



## BrianFortress

*A collection of comments about Fortress over the years:*

THE UNITED STATES NAVY
_"The Fortress anchors had far greater holding power than any other anchor tested."_

BATEAUX (France)
_"We tested the lightweight Fortress FX-23, and the results were remarkable!"_

CRUISING WORLD
_"The Fortress Anchor outperforms other anchors of comparable size."_

ELBERT S. MALONEY, Author "Chapman's Piloting & Seamanship"
_"I've used a Fortress as my primary anchor for more than six years. I have found the Fortress to be thoroughly dependable."_

MOTOR BOATING & SAILING
_"Fortress makes it practical for boat owners to carry a large storm anchor they might previously had no room for."_

MULTIHULLS
_"After almost a full year of heavy-duty cruising, there is no way I would revert to the old heavy steel anchors again."_ - "300 Day Cruising Test"

NAUTICA (Brazil)
_"The Fortress FX-7 wins again on our second test with impressive performance" (tests done in 1996 and 2010)_

NEPTUNE YACHTING (France)
_"The Fortress FX-23 attained far superior holding power than its much heavier opponents."_

PAKRYSS (Sweden)
_"Be assured that on the combination of anchors and the clay type bottom we tested in the published test, the Fortress anchor performed absolutely best."_

PONTOON & DECK BOAT
_"The Fortress is the best fluke type anchor we have ever tested."_

POWER AND MOTORYACHT
_"Fortress carries the 'form, not weight' theory to its logical conclusion."_

POWERBOAT REPORTS
_"The perfect anchor? We like Fortress!"_

PRACTICAL BOAT OWNER (UK)
_"Fortress anchors have at least twice the holding power of the other types tested."_

PRACTICAL SAILOR
_"The Fortress is hard to beat. We continue to be impressed."_

TRAILER BOATS
_"The Fortress FX-16's holding power is excellent in all conditions."_

SAIL
_"A well made aluminum anchor is at least a viable alternative to the various already proven designs in steel...the Fortress anchors tested highest."_

SAIL (Oct. 06)
_"With its light weight, quick setting and retrieval, enormous holding power at a variety of scopes, and easy stowability, the Fortress ranked high among all the anchors we tested."_

YACHTING
_"Fortress represents the best in anchor technology."_

YACHTING MONTHLY (UK)
_"The Fortress set very quickly during our tests. It outperformed all the other anchors by a significant margin."_

YACHTING MONTHLY (UK - Dec. 06)
_"The Fortress's ability to dig in instantly and hold was astonishing - especially as it weighs only 22 lb, one of the lightest anchors tested."_

VOILES ET VOILIERS (France July 09) & YACHTING MONTHLY (UK - Nov. 09) 
_"We were astonished by its holding power of more than 3 tonnes, equivalent to the cable load of a 12m (40ft) yacht in a hurricane."_

Regarding the test results from the Voiles et Voiliers that was referenced above by PCP:

Spade Aluminum 80 - 7 kg
Average holding power in hard sand =1,052kg* 
Holding in muddy sand = 798kg (12kg anchor)
*During the first test run with the 7kg anchor, the stock was severely twisted

Spade Steel 80 - 15 kg
Average holding power in hard sand=1,905kg 
Holding in muddy sand = more than 570kg*
*At this point the test rig broke

Fortress FX-37 - 10.6 kg
Holding power in hard sand = 3,281kg* 
Holding power in muddy sand = 959kg
*Only one test run because the flukes got badly bent

PCP, a fact check: Yes the test rig broke during a pull on the Spade Steel 80 model at 570 kg......but this occurred after both the aluminum Spade and Fortress had held much more than that previously.


----------



## smackdaddy

That's some great info Brian. Thanks.


----------



## PCP

BrianFortress said:


> THE UNITED STATES NAVY
> _"The Fortress anchors had far greater holding power than any other anchor tested."_
> 
> BATEAUX (France)
> _"We tested the lightweight Fortress FX-23, and the results were remarkable!"_
> 
> CRUISING WORLD
> _"The Fortress Anchor outperforms other anchors of comparable size."_
> 
> ELBERT S. MALONEY, Author "Chapman's Piloting & Seamanship"
> _"I've used a Fortress as my primary anchor for more than six years. I have found the Fortress to be thoroughly dependable."_
> 
> MOTOR BOATING & SAILING
> _"Fortress makes it practical for boat owners to carry a large storm anchor they might previously had no room for."_
> 
> MULTIHULLS
> _"After almost a full year of heavy-duty cruising, there is no way I would revert to the old heavy steel anchors again."_ - "300 Day Cruising Test"
> 
> NAUTICA (Brazil)
> _"The Fortress FX-7 wins again on our second test with impressive performance" (tests done in 1996 and 2010)_
> 
> NEPTUNE YACHTING (France)
> _"The Fortress FX-23 attained far superior holding power than its much heavier opponents."_
> 
> PAKRYSS (Sweden)
> _"Be assured that on the combination of anchors and the clay type bottom we tested in the published test, the Fortress anchor performed absolutely best."_
> 
> PONTOON & DECK BOAT
> _"The Fortress is the best fluke type anchor we have ever tested."_
> 
> POWER AND MOTORYACHT
> _"Fortress carries the 'form, not weight' theory to its logical conclusion."_
> 
> POWERBOAT REPORTS
> _"The perfect anchor? We like Fortress!"_
> 
> PRACTICAL BOAT OWNER (UK)
> _"Fortress anchors have at least twice the holding power of the other types tested."_
> 
> PRACTICAL SAILOR
> _"The Fortress is hard to beat. We continue to be impressed."_
> 
> TRAILER BOATS
> _"The Fortress FX-16's holding power is excellent in all conditions."_
> 
> SAIL
> _"A well made aluminum anchor is at least a viable alternative to the various already proven designs in steel...the Fortress anchors tested highest."_
> 
> SAIL (Oct. 06)
> _"With its light weight, quick setting and retrieval, enormous holding power at a variety of scopes, and easy stowability, the Fortress ranked high among all the anchors we tested."_
> 
> YACHTING
> _"Fortress represents the best in anchor technology."_
> 
> YACHTING MONTHLY (UK)
> _"The Fortress set very quickly during our tests. It outperformed all the other anchors by a significant margin."_
> 
> YACHTING MONTHLY (UK - Dec. 06)
> _"The Fortress's ability to dig in instantly and hold was astonishing - especially as it weighs only 22 lb, one of the lightest anchors tested."_
> 
> VOILES ET VOILIERS (France July 09) & YACHTING MONTHLY (UK - Nov. 09)
> _"We were astonished by its holding power of more than 3 tonnes, equivalent to the cable load of a 12m (40ft) yacht in a hurricane."_
> 
> *Regarding the test results from the Voiles et Voiliers that was referenced above by PCP:
> 
> Spade Aluminum 80 - 7 kg
> Average holding power in hard sand =1,052kg*
> Holding in muddy sand = 798kg (12kg anchor)
> *During the first test run with the 7kg anchor, the stock was severely twisted
> 
> Spade Steel 80 - 15 kg
> Average holding power in hard sand=1,905kg
> Holding in muddy sand = more than 570kg*
> *At this point the test rig broke
> 
> Fortress FX-37 - 10.6 kg
> Holding power in hard sand = 3,281kg*
> Holding power in muddy sand = 959kg
> *Only one test run because the flukes got badly bent
> 
> PCP, a fact check: Yes the test rig broke during a pull on the Spade Steel 80 model at 570 kg......but this occurred after both the aluminum Spade and Fortress had held much more than that previously.*


*So where are the experts saying that the Fortress is the world's best anchor? *Sure it is a good anchor but any of the others (Manson, Spade, Rocna) could pull out of those tests some similar quotes and in fact they do.

*To know the opinion of the Experts regarding all the anchors we have to read the test conclusions* where they refer not just one anchor but the comparative result. Let's pick that Voile and Voiler test. It is a complete one because they are not only utilizing the data of the 2009 test but also the data from a 2003 previous test in a different type of bottom with some of the same anchors so: ( free translation from French)

*CONCLUSIONS

1 - An anchor is a complex thing and the minimum deformation makes them unusable. The Fortress, the aluminum Spade, ... were deformed on the test and never worked properly after being deformed.

2 -The Aluminum Anchors work almost as well as their steel brothers with a big handicap: The nature of the very malleable material makes them easily deformed and that forbids those anchors has the only anchor aboard.

3- the last conclusion: Yes, the new anchors are truly better than the old ones to the point of having holding values two times bigger, sometimes three times.... given the different nature of the bottoms it is a bit presumptuous to say that this or that is the best anchor but taking into consideration the regularity of the comportment on the four tests on different bottoms and what we saw on the underwater movies we can say that The Spade, the Kobra 2, the Manson and the Bugel *(the Rocna was not in this test) *are all excellent anchors offering a significantly better holding on sand bottoms comparing with the holding of traditional anchors.
*

Now, I don't see the experts saying that the Fortress is the best anchor, hell, it is not even on the test winners.

Why? well Brian had forgotten to say that on soft sand a 7kg fortress was only capable of 370kg holding power and an also aluminum 7kg Spade had 650kg of holding power. The Steel Spade holds 900kg and the Kobra2 750kg.

Also forgot that the 7kg Fortress could only hold 25kg on pebbles while the aluminum 7kg Spade could hold 70kg, the Steel Spade 300kg and the Kobra 2 could hold 400kg.

But most of all he forgot to say that from the 13 anchors on test only two had *BAD *has classification in what regards storage in the bow"* and one of them was the Fortress*. On what regards "Tenue a l'evitage" meaning the holding power when the boat rotates and pull the anchor from different angles they didn't publish the results from the Fortress (or any other aluminum anchor in any of the tests). On this regard the Bugel got good, the Kobra 2 good, the Mason very good and the Spade very good.

Now, can somebody say honestly that the Experts have considered on this extensive test the Fortress as the best anchor? Or even among the best anchors?

Please Brian, have a bit of modesty

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska

I would like to see a show of hands. 

If you owned any of the aforementioned anchor companies, would you advertise it as... "a pretty good anchor that is better in some conditions more than others....... Buy our anchor, because we're really honest about it."

I'm not condoning outright fraud, but puffery is a fairly standard, even protected under the law.


----------



## CapitainMike

T34C said:


> Several of you slagged Fortress for their claim of "The World's Best Anchor". I just got a new Fortress recently and thought it might be helpful to let you know that all of their printed material and packaging actually says, "The Experts Agree.... The World's Best Anchor". You might think its just semantics, but if they have expert testimony that those experts do indeed believe Fortress to be the best anchor then their claims are absolutely correct when viewed in the whole.


Should advertise like Heineken

"Probably the best Lager in the World"

Experts.
An "ex" is a kind of has-been, and a "spurt" is just a drip under pressure.

The difference between an amateur and a professional is that the professional gets paid. It does not mean he knows more.


----------



## tdw

Yes the advertising hyperbole is something else is it not ? "Many Experts" would be another possibility but no we have to have "The Experts". Every single one of them judging by that line. Its silly and it is unnecessary but it is advertising and we should be grown up enough to know that most advertising is total BS.


----------



## BrianFortress

Paolo,

Great message and some solid points. More info:

• In the Voiles et Voiles test report in July 09, the 22 lb/10 kg FX-37 held 3,281kg (7,218 lbs) until the flukes bent. This was far greater than the next best anchor in the test which was the Spade 80 that held 1,950kg (4,290 lbs).......and the Spade 80 was 40% heavier.

Paulo, I am sure that you read where the testers wrote that they were "astonished" by how much the FX-37 held....and how this force was similar to hurricane strength winds against a 12m (40 ft) yacht?

Sure, the flukes bent during the strain......_but long after all of the steel anchors had broken loose._ In the real world, I think most boaters would rather have a damaged anchor and their boat safe after a heavy blow.....than have their anchor look like new after breaking loose and their boat in splinters on the shoreline.

We also offer a Lifetime Parts Replacement Warranty on our product, and any damaged parts are replaced for free, the customer just pays shipping & handling which is minimal because the parts are light and we ship them via the US Postal Service.

No sales receipt or product registration are required. There is also no need to return the damaged parts, and it doesn't matter where or when you bought your Fortress anchor, or from whom....._this warranty applies to ALL Fortress anchors that we have sold around the world for the past 20 years._

• In the Voiles et Voiliers test in 2003, the 7 kg Fortress obviously did not perform well. No excuses!

• Apparently in the Voiles et Voiliers test in 2003, they said something about aluminum bending easily. Here is what the US Navy said after their tests in which many of the steel anchors tested were destroyed:

_"The fact that the Fortress anchors incurred no significant structural damage at such high holding ratios suggest that the anchors have been extensively engineered from both the hydrodynamic and structural standpoints."_

• Regarding the Fortress being "BAD" for storage on the bow, I tend to agree. I know that on some boats they might not add to the "aesthetics" with the two big flukes and the narrow round rod (stock) sticking out, but on other boats like the US Coast Guard's 87' Patrol Boats (CPB), I think they look very elegant!

• Concerning the _"Tenue a l'evitage" meaning the holding power when the boat rotates and pull the anchor from different angles"_ there was an extensive test conducted several years ago by the US Sailing Foundation in which they tested the anchors with a straight pull, a 90° pull and a 180° pull.

The maximum pull force they could apply was around 4,000 lbs....and the 22 lb/10 kg FX-37 held 4,100 lbs in the straight pull, then 90-degree at 4,248 lbs, then 4,001 lbs at 180-degree.

Yes, they did bend the shank slightly.....but no other much heavier steel anchor came close. Check it out:

1995 Anchor Study

Now, whether to call these people from many parts of the world "experts" who test anchors and who wrote those positive things about Fortress is obviously subject to opinion. What matters most to us is what CUSTOMERS, who regularly use and depend on our product, have to say.


----------



## tdw

*Brian - An Apology*

In previous posts I have repeatedly mentioned the high cost of the Fortress but I've just been doing some checking and I was way out in my pricing.

Reality is that comparable Fortress (in Australia) is at worst only marginally more expensive than Rocna (depends on where you are buying) and for an FX23 only a AUD100 more than a 35lb Masnon Supreme.

OK so that is a whole lot more than plough clones and Deltas but is quite competitive with other "New Generation" anchors.


----------



## PCP

BrianFortress said:


> Paolo,
> 
> Great message and some solid points. More info:
> 
> • In the Voiles et Voiles test report in July 09, the 22 lb/10 kg FX-37 held 3,281kg (7,218 lbs) until the flukes bent. This was far greater than the next best anchor in the test which was the Spade 80 that held 1,950kg (4,290 lbs).......and the Spade 80 was 40% heavier.
> 
> Paulo, I am sure that you read where the testers wrote that they were "astonished" by how much the FX-37 held....and how this force was similar to hurricane strength winds against a 12m (40 ft) yacht?
> 
> Sure, the flukes bent during the strain......_but long after all of the steel anchors had broken loose._ In the real world, I think most boaters would rather have a damaged anchor and their boat safe after a heavy blow.....than have their anchor look like new after breaking loose and their boat in splinters on the shoreline.
> 
> We also offer a Lifetime Parts Replacement Warranty on our product, and any damaged parts are replaced for free, the customer just pays shipping & handling which is minimal because the parts are light and we ship them via the US Postal Service.
> .....
> • In the Voiles et Voiliers test in 2003, the 7 kg Fortress obviously did not perform well. No excuses!
> 
> • Apparently in the Voiles et Voiliers test in 2003, they said something about aluminum bending easily. Here is what the US Navy said after their tests in which many of the steel anchors tested were destroyed:
> 
> _"The fact that the Fortress anchors incurred no significant structural damage at such high holding ratios suggest that the anchors have been extensively engineered from both the hydrodynamic and structural standpoints."_
> 
> • Regarding the Fortress being "BAD" for storage on the bow, I tend to agree. I know that on some boats they might not add to the "aesthetics" with the two big flukes and the narrow round rod (stock) sticking out, but on other boats like the US Coast Guard's 87' Patrol Boats (CPB), I think they look very elegant!
> 
> • Concerning the _"Tenue a l'evitage" meaning the holding power when the boat rotates and pull the anchor from different angles"_ there was an extensive test conducted several years ago by the US Sailing Foundation in which they tested the anchors with a straight pull, a 90° pull and a 180° pull.
> 
> The maximum pull force they could apply was around 4,000 lbs....and the 22 lb/10 kg FX-37 held 4,100 lbs in the straight pull, then 90-degree at 4,248 lbs, then 4,001 lbs at 180-degree.
> 
> Yes, they did bend the shank slightly.....but no other much heavier steel anchor came close. Check it out:
> 
> 1995 Anchor Study
> 
> Now, whether to call these people from many parts of the world "experts" who test anchors and who wrote those positive things about Fortress is obviously subject to opinion. What matters most to us is what CUSTOMERS, who regularly use and depend on our product, have to say.


Brian, don't take me wrong, I think the Fortress is good anchor I am just saying that it is just silly to say that the Experts agree that the Fortress is the best anchor in the world. I have read many *recent* test anchors made in different countries and I can tell you that is not a conclusion that we can take from the conclusions of those tests and I am sure you know that.

You can still think the Fortress is the best anchor in the world but makes no sense to claim that the "*Experts say that is the best Anchor in the World*" when the conclusions on most recent tests point other anchors has better options and no one (on those tests) is claiming that the Fortress is the "*world's best Anchor*" and I am referring to recent tests that include the Rocna, the Mason and the Spade all along with the Fortress. In fact almost all claim that new designs work better and Fortress is not a new design. I think that claims like that turn out to be bad publicity giving little credit to the manufacturer.

Regarding the astonish force the Fortress hold (+ 3000kg) I agree that is truly impressive and I have already said that I plan to have a Fortress as secondary anchor. But regarding being bent you cannot tell at what point the anchor started to bend. When they take it out it was really badly bent and they found out with other anchors that a slightly bent anchor is of little if any use.

Regarding the tests wit the Us sailing foundation what we know is that the anchor hold 4248lb at 90º and got a bent. We don't know at what point it started to got bent but we know that a bent anchor is not working anymore and that give credit to the French testers that say that you should not use a Fortress as your primary and only anchor.

Brian we all know that Stell is much more resistant to bending than aluminum and we all know that a lateral force on a relative long shank will deform much more easily a shank made of aluminum than a steel one and we also know that the shank will work as lever multiplying that lateral force. I am not disputing the capacity of the Fortress to stay dig regarding a lateral force but the capacity of that shank to resist to big lateral forces without deformation. That capacity is a lot lesser than on a good steel anchor.

Some test also pointed the superior capacity of anchors like Mason, Rocna, Spade to reset after got lose (it is unnecessary to quote those tests but you certainly know that is true).

Bottom point, Brian you seem a reasonable and nice guy instead of trying to defend the unreasonable (Fortress is the world's best anchor) try to convince the Fortress sales publicity responsible to change the publicity approach.

Credibility is very important on the safety and anchor business and unreasonable claims does not contribute to that credibility and in the long term are prejudicial.

Fortress is a great anchor and its superior holding power (in some cases) can be indispensable to hold the boat in a blow when the main anchor drags. Its light and it is in my opinion the perfect secondary anchor. We all need secondary anchors and the Fortress is not only a good anchor but close to the perfect secondary anchor.

So why to insist on those unreasonable claims?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## BrianFortress

Paulo,

Thanks for your follow-up message and I appreciate your fine points. While the steel used with some anchors might be stronger than the aluminum alloy that is used with the Fortress, proper thickness and machining can result in the aluminum alloy being stronger in the critical load points of the anchor, which is what the US Navy was essentially saying in that statement.

An image of the Fortress with the bent shank after 4,000+ lbs of 90° and 180° pulls from the US Sailing Foundation test is below, alongside an image of the Rocna anchor that was bent under minimal load conditions. If you have been following other forums like Anything Sailing and YBW, this image is what has Rocna in trouble right now, as Manson published independent steel tests which shows that the Rocna is being made in China out of an inferior steel than what they have claimed.

In the most recent anchor holding power tests that were conducted by West Marine and the 40,000 member Swedish Cruising Association, and reported in Sail, Power & Motoryacht, Yachting Monthly (UK), and Pakyrss (Sweden) magazines, the Fortress out-performed the other much heavier steel anchors in these tests.....which included the Manson, Rocna, and Spade anchors.

If you would like, I will gladly e-mail you these test results. Unfortunately they cannot be posted here because Sailnet has limited restrictions on the file sizes. Please just send me a PM and I will follow-up immediately.

I understand your dislike of our stating our product as "The World's Best Anchor" in any form. There are certainly circumstances where the Fortress will provide unmatched holding power and a "holding power to weight ratio" that is absolutely the best in the world, i.e. Miami sand bottom test where a 65 lb Fortress held 20,0000 lbs until the rope broke (holding power to weight ratio of 300+)...._BUT_

There are bottom conditions where a narrower, denser type of anchor is very likely to have an advantage, i.e. harder soils, rocks, grass, weeds.

To illustrate this difference further, below are images of a 33 lb (15kg) Rocna model and a 32 lb Fortress model. It is obvious that the massive surface area advantage of the two flukes with the Fortress would have to result in greater holding power in common softer bottoms such as sand, mud, or clay, but again.....in harder soils the narrower, denser type anchor is likely to have an advantage.

This reverts back to the old saying by the most experienced cruisers that "there is no such thing as the perfect anchor" and it is always wise to carry different types of anchors aboard.

Thanks again Paulo....and _safe anchoring!_

Brian
Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## smackdaddy

Brian, what were the "minimal load conditions" on the Rocna shank bend (the pic) - and how was that load measured?


----------



## BrianFortress

Smackdaddy,

As per Grant King, Rocna's former production manager, who is well familiar with the situation:

_The bent shank photo that appeared is exactly how that grade of shank that was tested would behave with minimal stress applied to it.

There are hundreds of those throughout the world just waiting to bend. The one in the photo was on a Bavaria 49 displacement 11 tons.

Quoted by local distributor who handled the customer return:

This boat was anchored about at 2 miles from the coast at a depth of 7.5m in a sandy seabed. Chain 35 m - 10 mm. During the day there was a wind of 17-20 knots.

When it was the moment to sail, with the bow placed vertically on the anchor, activating the windlass, a strength resistance was perceived from the Customer. When the anchor was completely lifted, the Customer noticed that the anchor was bended as per the attached pictures._

I can put you in direct contact with Grant if you would like to investigate this further. For immediate information, he has posted several enlightening messages on the forum below:

I hate to do this...but - Page 56 - Yachting and Boating World Forums

Regards,
Brian


----------



## smackdaddy

Yeah - but I think he would fall into the "disgruntled employee" category from what I understand. And that just turns into a another crapsling. Not interested.

I just think if the argument is going to be about data and experts - make the arguments based on data and experts.

That's all any of us consumers care about really: What's really _true_?

(i.e. - the title of this thread)


----------



## BrianFortress

Yes, he is disgruntled for sure....and for very sound reasons, but no matter here, as you said.


----------



## PaulfromNWOnt

BrianFortress said:


> Yes, he is disgruntled for sure....and for very sound reasons, but no matter here, as you said.


I've never been completely gruntled with any job I left. :laugher


----------



## PCP

BrianFortress said:


> Paulo,
> 
> Thanks for your follow-up message and I appreciate your fine points. While the steel used with some anchors might be stronger than the aluminum alloy that is used with the Fortress, proper thickness and machining can result in the aluminum alloy being stronger in the critical load points of the anchor, which is what the US Navy was essentially saying in that statement.


Yes, but an Aluminum Anchor it will never be as strong as a well made steel one. It has to do with the qualities of the material and an aluminum alloy will never be as strong as good quality steel.



BrianFortress said:


> In the most recent anchor holding power tests that were conducted by West Marine and the 40,000 member Swedish Cruising Association, and reported in Sail, Power & Motoryacht, Yachting Monthly (UK), and Pakyrss (Sweden) magazines, the Fortress out-performed the other much heavier steel anchors in these tests.....which included the Manson, Rocna, and Spade anchors.
> 
> If you would like, I will gladly e-mail you these test results. Unfortunately they cannot be posted here because Sailnet has limited restrictions on the file sizes. Please just send me a PM and I will follow-up immediately.


Well, it depends of what you mean, the Fortress bent again and that means it cannot be used again. When you say that the Fortress out-performed all other anchors you should not be referring to your opinion about the test but to the opinion of the testers. So let's see what the testers say on that test conclusions:










*They don't say that the Forrtess out-performed the new generation anchors, in fact they say that the Rocna the Mason the Spade and the Fortress were the top performers.*

They don't say also that the Fortress is the best anchor and if we take a look of what they say particularly regarding the Fortress:










Well, they say good things, besides saying that the anchor bent with a veering test (they don't say the load). They also say: It*" is the perfect kedge anchor and storm anchor for many users.This is a lightweight anchor which should prove dependable in an emergency."*

*They don't seem to be recommending it as a primary anchor but as an emergency anchor, a storm anchor, a secondary anchor.*

http://www.roschmarine.nl/images/DownloadStore/prod_20_48.pdf

Curiously that is precisely what Spade says about its Aluminum Anchor (they have a steel and an aluminum anchor):

"*Does the aluminium SPADE have the same holding as the steel version of the same size?*

Holding power of an anchor has very little relation to its weight. Holding power has a much closer relation to the size, and the shape, of the effective surface area of the anchor's blade. Because each model of our anchors will have the same effective surface area, whether made of steel or of aluminium, each anchor will have the same holding power. Several independent tests, by nautical magazines have confirmed that our aluminium anchors hold with exactly the same power as the steel version of the same size *although it is important to note that we do not recommend the use of an aluminium anchor as a main anchor...We use a marine aluminium alloy, and as its resistance is less than that of steel, we use heavier grades to compensate. But for use in very rough conditions, we will suggest our steel model as a main anchor and the aluminium one as a secondary to stern anchor.... We do not recommend the use of an all chain rode on aluminium anchors".

Following your recommendation, what would be the best use of your aluminium model?

We will suggest our aluminium model as a secondary or stern anchor; or as a main anchor if your boat is a ULDB; or light weight catamaran; or if you are frequently racing; or if you have a large boat and no electric windlass."
*

Regarding that statement about the *"experts say that the Fortress is the World's best anchor"* it is agreeable to se modesty on the Spade side:

*Do you consider the SPADE anchor good for all bottom types?*

Some sea bottoms are more difficult than others: thick weed, shingle, boulders, or flat rock surfaces all make difficult bottoms for anchors. In these cases we can only say that *the SPADE anchor will hold better than most models.* *In very soft mud*, equivalent sized flat anchors with an opening angle of 45 degrees (between fluke and shank) *will give better results *- but only in this type of sea bottom *on the whole we believe* the SPADE to be the best all round anchor on the market.

FAQs

By the way, a recent test on soft mud with the Spade beating the Fortress (from Practical Sailor, April 2006):










And another one, in sand and mud with the Spade beating the Fortress (from Practical Sailor Jan 2001:



















I still think that the Fortress is an excellent anchor for what should be used for and I still intend to buy one, but Brian, don't you think that that claim about "Experts say that the Fortress is the best world anchor" is a bit exaggerated? I feel you do.



BrianFortress said:


> I understand your dislike of our stating our product as "The World's Best Anchor" in any form. There are certainly circumstances where the Fortress will provide unmatched holding power and a "holding power to weight ratio" that is absolutely the best in the world, i.e. Miami sand bottom test where a 65 lb Fortress held 20,0000 lbs until the rope broke (holding power to weight ratio of 300+)......


No Brian that is not true. I think you can claim that in some conditions your anchor can hold more than any other (even if it is bent and rendered useless in the process) and certainly no anchor with that weight can hold that much and If I was anchored in the storm I would not mind to destroy my anchor if she maintained my boat safe.

I think that Fortress can claim with some propriety that the Experts say that it is the best secondary anchor in the world, I even can accept you saying that you think Fortress is the best anchor in the world, but saying that the experts say that Fortress is the world's best anchor imply that the test results and the testers opinions point Fortress as the Word's best anchor and that is simply not true at least in what regards primary anchors.

Bottom note. I have talked more about Spade because from the other two (Mason and Rocna)it is the one that is around for more time and we can find older tests that compare it with the Fortress and that is not the case with Rocna or Mason. I think they are the best primary anchors on the market even if those news about the bad quality of the Rocna steel are very worrying and would make me think twice before buying a Rocna, at least right now because I have no doubts they will take care of the situation simply because commercially makes no sense to make a good anchor with bad quality steel.

Brian, sorry for my bluntness I hope you understand that I am just voicing my opinion but I confess that this statement: "Experts say that Fortress is the Word's best anchor" is just the kind of publicity I hate.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## CapitainMike

Why don't you cut the OOOO It is totally impossible to agree that the fortress is the best anchor in the world all the anchors can't be the best anchors in the world. By making a claim like that you just get in the queue with all the other B/S manufactures advertising of which none of it is all believeable. All we want to know is will this anchor whichever hold us on this??? bottom with this wind force??? with what chain rope etc. Sell it on what it will really do. Not comparing with other anchors. Good news travels slowly if at all, bad news travels fast and makes more impression. I think everybody is getting fed up with the mudslinging and endless graphs experts etc.I could go on numerous forums and say this anchor is better than that anchor and why without never actually having seen one face to face. Or this anchor is worse than that anchor! what are people going to believe. Of course the worse and they will steer away from that anchor/ manufacturer just in case. Slag everybody else's product at your peril. There product is good but your product is better at whatever. Cannot be everything.


----------



## BrianFortress

Paulo & CaptainMike,

Thanks for your input and points, which are well taken and duly noted. A couple of posts back I mentioned the old adage that "there is no such thing as the perfect anchor" and I believe we can all agree with that statement.

Much appreciated,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## marinextreme

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah - but I think he would fall into the "disgruntled employee" category from what I understand. And that just turns into a another crapsling. Not interested.
> 
> I just think if the argument is going to be about data and experts - make the arguments based on data and experts.
> 
> That's all any of us consumers care about really: What's really _true_?
> 
> (i.e. - the title of this thread)


I have only ever stated fact


----------



## WDfrmTN

PCP said:


> Yes, but an Aluminum Anchor it will never be as strong as a well made steel one. It has to do with the qualities of the material and an aluminum alloy will never be as strong as good quality steel.
> Paulo


Not taking sides on the anchor issue, but I will against incorrect information. The strength-to-weight capabilities of aluminum and other allows over steel is well documented and time proven.


----------



## smackdaddy

marinextreme said:


> I have only ever stated fact


If this is the ex-employee dude I was talking about above, no offense to you personally, but I'm personally not going to take anything an angry ex has to say as objective insight.

As you can see in this thread, the issue you guys are arguing is based predominantly in marketing language and competitive posturing. And in that realm...no one's hands are perfectly clean.


----------



## LinekinBayCD

WDfrmTN said:


> Not taking sides on the anchor issue, but I will against incorrect information. The strength-to-weight capabilities of aluminum and other allows over steel is well documented and time proven.


I think you guys are talking about two differen things and both are likely correct. Pound for pound aluminium would be stronger. For example a one foot square sheet of aluminum weighing the same as a one foot sq sheet of steel would be thicker and stronger than the steel. However a bar of steel would be stronger than a bar of aluminium of exactly the same dimentions. It of course would weigh a lot more.

Don't want any new fights to start.


----------



## CapitainMike

smackdaddy said:


> If this is the ex-employee dude I was talking about above, no offense to you personally, but I'm personally not going to take anything an angry ex has to say as objective insight.
> 
> As you can see in this thread, the issue you guys are arguing is based predominantly in marketing language and competitive posturing. And in that realm...no one's hands are perfectly clean.


I agree entirely.


----------



## WDfrmTN

LinekinBayCD said:


> However a bar of steel would be stronger than a bar of aluminium of exactly the same dimentions.
> Don't want any new fights to start.


Incorrect. That's exactly what the strength-to-weight ratios address.
BTW, I'm a licensed A&P mechanic, certified welder and fabricator, and do know more than just a bit about this.


----------



## CapitainMike

OK all please excuse my ignorance but I thought there were different grades of steel and aluminium alloys so what exactly are we talking about here can some one who knows what they are talking about please explain I thought that in different circumstances and with different alloys they would behave differently or both the same.


----------



## LinekinBayCD

WDfrmTN said:


> Incorrect. That's exactly what the strength-to-weight ratios address.
> BTW, I'm a licensed A&P mechanic, certified welder and fabricator, and do know more than just a bit about this.


I was not talking about strength to weight. In my example I was disregarding weight other than to generalize that a bar of steel would be heavier than a bar of aluminium of the same dimensions. So a 2 foot (in length) 1" x 1" bar/rod of aluminium will support more than 2 foot 1" x 1" bar of steel? That's news to me.

Aluminum sheet vs steel sheet

The following table gives a quick point of reference when you need the approximate thickness of aluminum sheet to use in replacing steel sheet. The designated aluminum thickness will give you about the same stiffness. Or, putting it another way, the deflection will be about equal. As a rule of thumb, plan on using an aluminum sheet about 40% thicker than steel. Since aluminum weighs only 1/3 as much as steel, this means that the equivalent aluminum sheet will weigh only half as much as the steel sheet it replaces.

Approximate stiffness equivalence:

Steel LB/SF Steel Thick Alu Thick Alu LB/SF 
.975 .024 .032 .452 
1.22 .029 .040 .564 
1.47 .035 .050 .705 
1.80 .044 .063 .890 
2.44 .059 .080 1.13 
2.56 .062 .090 1.27 
2.86 .070 .100 1.41 
3.66 .089 .125 1.76 
4.88 .119 .160 2.25 
5.49 .134 .190 2.68 
7.33 .179 .250 3.53


----------



## T34C

What grade of Al, and what grade of steel? How about when you start adding other metals into the alloys...?


----------



## WDfrmTN

CapitainMike said:


> OK all please excuse my ignorance but I thought there were different grades of steel and aluminium alloys so what exactly are we talking about here can some one who knows what they are talking about please explain I thought that in different circumstances and with different alloys they would behave differently or both the same.


Exactly! 
And what I was addressing was the inaccuracy of this particular quote:
"Yes, but an Aluminum Anchor it will never be as strong as a well made steel one. It has to do with the qualities of the material and an aluminum alloy will never be as strong as good quality steel."

If there were only ONE type aluminum alloy and only ONE type steel, the statement _could_ be true; however, since (as you just pointed out) there are many different types of each as well as many different properties, and processes concerning each different one, then the statements are simply untrue.


----------



## WDfrmTN

LinekinBayCD,
Here's the quote:
"Yes, but an Aluminum Anchor it will never be as strong as a well made steel one. It has to do with the qualities of the material and an aluminum alloy will never be as strong as good quality steel."
(Underlines mine)
The above, as stated, true or false?


----------



## LinekinBayCD

WDfrmTN said:


> LinekinBayCD,
> Here's the quote:
> "Yes, but an Aluminum Anchor it will never be as strong as a well made steel one. It has to do with the qualities of the material and an aluminum alloy will never be as strong as good quality steel."
> (Underlines mine)
> The above, as stated, true or false?


Wasn't my quote.


----------



## WDfrmTN

LinekinBayCD said:


> Wasn't my quote.


What difference does that make?


----------



## CapitainMike

LinekinBayCD said:


> I was not talking about strength to weight. In my example I was disregarding weight other than to generalize that a bar of steel would be heavier than a bar of aluminium of the same dimensions. So a 2 foot (in length) 1" x 1" bar/rod of aluminium will support more than 2 foot 1" x 1" bar of steel? That's news to me.
> 
> Aluminum sheet vs steel sheet
> 
> The following table gives a quick point of reference when you need the approximate thickness of aluminum sheet to use in replacing steel sheet. The designated aluminum thickness will give you about the same stiffness. Or, putting it another way, the deflection will be about equal. As a rule of thumb, plan on using an aluminum sheet about 40% thicker than steel. Since aluminum weighs only 1/3 as much as steel, this means that the equivalent aluminum sheet will weigh only half as much as the steel sheet it replaces.
> 
> Approximate stiffness equivalence:
> 
> Steel LB/SF Steel Thick Alu Thick Alu LB/SF
> .975 .024 .032 .452
> 1.22 .029 .040 .564
> 1.47 .035 .050 .705
> 1.80 .044 .063 .890
> 2.44 .059 .080 1.13
> 2.56 .062 .090 1.27
> 2.86 .070 .100 1.41
> 3.66 .089 .125 1.76
> 4.88 .119 .160 2.25
> 5.49 .134 .190 2.68
> 7.33 .179 .250 3.53


So theoretically for an aluminium anchor to behave in the same way as a steel anchor. The thickness of the metal would have to be 40% bigger with the internal dimensions (the holding Dimensions) the same. If this is approximately correct (I say approximately purposely to take care of the pedantics amongst us) what would the approximate weight ratio be between two anchors with the same internal dimension (design) and the same manufacturer. 40%????


----------



## PCP

WDfrmTN said:


> Not taking sides on the anchor issue, but I will against incorrect information. The strength-to-weight capabilities of aluminum and other allows over steel is well documented and time proven.


Of course but you seem not to know that the recommended anchors for a given size of a boat, in aluminum and Steel have not the same weight but approximatively the same size. And that's what counts: On same sized anchors, a well made steel one will be stronger than an aluminum one. That's why on the anchor tests they almost always bent Aluminum Anchors (not only the Fortress) and rarely bent steel anchors.

When I have said well made steel anchor that includes a proper grade of steel.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## CapitainMike

PCP said:


> Of course but you seem not to know that the recommended anchors for a given size of a boat, in aluminum and Steel have not the same weight but approximatively the same size. And that's what counts: On same sized anchors, a well made steel one will be stronger than an aluminum one. That's why on the anchor tests they almost always bent Aluminum Anchors (not only the Fortress) and rarely bent steel anchors.
> 
> When I have said well made steel anchor that includes a proper grade of steel.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Hmmmmmmmmm!!!!!! In Reply to your statement/question I was not making a point I was discussing the relative strengths of an anchor made from Aluminium with a 40% increased in material not size than the same anchor made in steel.

An anchor rode entirely of chain with a rope snubber will hold just as well as a larger anchor on rope so weight also matters.

I would be very interested to know if you have a boat of your own now and if so please tell us the anchors you are using.

You don't seem to know or ignore the fact that there are different sizes recommended by different manufactures for the same size boat or there size tables do not equate weight of vessel to length of vessel in relation to their anchor size choice. This means pushing you to purchase a larger anchor than is needed for their profit margin or maybe not if its to big a reconstruction job to make it fit. Do what I did when I was looking for an anchor collate all the recommended sizes on one sheet. Spade, Manson, Rocna, Buegel, Ultra, etc then make a statement.

Am I right in believing that you are the gentleman who used to work in the aussie anchor market and then set up a business in Latin America if so I looked at your design which was pretty good but unfortunately you had ceased production I think because of carriage costs.


----------



## CapitainMike

PCP said:


> Of course but you seem not to know that the recommended anchors for a given size of a boat, in aluminum and Steel have not the same weight but approximatively the same size. And that's what counts: On same sized anchors, a well made steel one will be stronger than an aluminum one. That's why on the anchor tests they almost always bent Aluminum Anchors (not only the Fortress) and rarely bent steel anchors.
> 
> When I have said well made steel anchor that includes a proper grade of steel.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Sorry to post again but I just re read your post and I have another comment/question. 
Paulo you state.

On same sized anchors, a well made steel one will be stronger than an aluminum one. That's why on the anchor tests they almost always bent Aluminum Anchors (not only the Fortress) and rarely bent steel anchors.

When I have said well made steel anchor that includes a proper grade of steel.

A well made steel one.
This infers that the aluminium anchor is not well made. 
On some sized anchors. What almost always bent.
Take all you have said put it in a bag shake it put your hand in and take one out. 
That one seems to be the winner


----------



## BrianFortress

PCP said:


> That's why on the anchor tests they almost always bent Aluminum Anchors (not only the Fortress) and rarely bent steel anchors.
> 
> When I have said well made steel anchor that includes a proper grade of steel.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


In the case of the Fortress anchor bending during an anchor test, it is almost ALWAYS under a load that occurs long after the steel anchors have pulled out of the sea bottom.

Or put in a different way, the steel anchors don't often bend in the anchor tests because they will pull out of a sea bottom first.

And Paulo, I will see if I can locate pictures of the high grade steel anchors that were destroyed in the US Navy tests, while the Fortress anchors tested had minimal damage.

These tests proved beyond a doubt that just because an anchor is manufactured from a high grade of steel does not guarantee that they will be able to withstand heavy loads, or even provide good holding power for that matter.

Structural strength can be achieved by properly thickening and machining the metal at it's critical stress points.


----------



## Sapperwhite

If anyone could provide the strength to weight ratio data for a cider block tied off with clothesline that would be a great help to me.


----------



## PCP

CapitainMike said:


> Sorry to post again but I just re read your post and I have another comment/question.
> Paulo you state.
> 
> On same sized anchors, a well made steel one will be stronger than an aluminum one. That's why on the anchor tests they almost always bent Aluminum Anchors (not only the Fortress) and rarely bent steel anchors.
> 
> When I have said well made steel anchor that includes a proper grade of steel.
> 
> 
> A well made steel one.
> *This infers that the aluminium anchor is not well made. *
> On some sized anchors. What almost always bent.
> Take all you have said put it in a bag shake it put your hand in and take one out.
> That one seems to be the winner


Nothing than I have said permits you to infer that I think aluminum anchors are not well made or not made with the best possible alloy but only that for a recommended given size of boat they are less resistant in extreme conditions.

That is for example the opinion of Spade that makes steel an aluminum anchors. On the tests I have saw that compare the Aluminum Spade and the Fortress I have no reason to believe that the Spade is less resistant than the Fortress and I don't think that neither the Fortress or the Aluminum Spade are made with low grade aluminum alloys, quite the contrary.

Spade commenting on his aluminum Anchor versus its Steel Anchor (same design):

*What type of aluminium are you using? Is it more prone to bending than steel?*

We use a marine aluminium alloy, and as its resistance is less than that of steel, we use heavier grades to compensate. *But for use in very rough conditions, we will suggest our steel model as a main anchor and the aluminium one as a secondary to stern anchor.*

*Following your recommendation, what would be the best use of your aluminium model?*

We will suggest our aluminium model as a secondary or stern anchor; or as a main anchor if your boat is a ULDB; or light weight catamaran; or if you are frequently racing; or if you have a large boat and no electric windlass.

FAQs

Regards

Paulo


----------



## tdw

CapitainMike said:


> I would be very interested to know if you have a boat of your own now and if so please tell us the anchors you are using.
> 
> Am I right in believing that you are the gentleman who used to work in the aussie anchor market and then set up a business in Latin America if so I looked at your design which was pretty good but unfortunately you had ceased production I think because of carriage costs.


I'm going to let Paulo answer this in full but you are way off beam here.


----------



## PCP

CapitainMike said:


> ..
> 
> I would be very interested to know if you have a boat of your own now and if so please tell us the anchors you are using.


I have used extensively a 15K Spade on a 6.5T 36ft with an all chain rod (for 7 years). Never dragged not even when most boats around me were dragging (+35K wind). However on very strong wind I have noticed that the anchor moved slightly during several hours ( a meter or two) without losing grip. Probably as they say on the chart that boat was on the limit for that anchor.

I have used occasionally a Kobra and a Delta (with a lot less confidence) and never in a blow (+25k).



CapitainMike said:


> You don't seem to know or ignore the fact that there are different sizes recommended by different manufactures for the same size boat or there size tables do not equate weight of vessel to length of vessel in relation to their anchor size choice. This means pushing you to purchase a larger anchor than is needed for their profit margin or maybe not if its to big a reconstruction job to make it fit. Do what I did when I was looking for an anchor collate all the recommended sizes on one sheet. Spade, Manson, Rocna, Buegel, Ultra, etc then make a statement.


Can you explain what you mean ? the recommended charts are very similar. Here you have the one from Spade (click on details), from Rocna and from Mason. Note that the one from Mason don't specify the weight of the boat, an important factor and they say:

Anchor sizing should be interpreted as a guide only. Many factors influence anchor size selection ie, *whether the boat is a heavy displacement or a light displacement craft and how much windage the vessel has*. T... Finally the vessel usage should also be factored in ie *whether the anchor will only be used as a "lunch pick" in fair weather for day outings or indeed whether the vessel will be going on extended coastal or offshore cruising.* *If in any doubt about anchor selection always use a bigger anchor*, ..

Spade:

Range Overview

Mason:

Manson Supreme recommended sizing chart

Rocna:

http://www.rocna.com/themes/rocna/pdfs/metric_tonnes.pdf



CapitainMike said:


> Am I right in believing that you are the gentleman who used to work in the aussie anchor market and then set up a business in Latin America if so I looked at your design which was pretty good but unfortunately you had ceased production I think because of carriage costs.


No, you are not right.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

BrianFortress said:


> In the case of the Fortress anchor bending during an anchor test, it is almost ALWAYS under a load that occurs long after the steel anchors have pulled out of the sea bottom.
> 
> Or put in a different way, the steel anchors don't often bend in the anchor tests because they will pull out of a sea bottom first.


That is a generalization that not only is true but yes I can accept that. At least it happened in some tests with some bottoms but that regards only badly bent flukes.

The problem with aluminum anchors has not to do with bent flukes but with the forces on the long shank in a veering moment. Regarding that, what you say is not accurate. About the test carried out by west marine Yachtingmonthly say :

*" we subjected it to a further test at 3/1 scope and it cave an amaising 4.500 lb plus resistance though the shank bent slightly during our veering test."* . They don't say at what force the shank bent but their conclusion is *"This is a lightweight anchor wich should prove dependable in an emergency"*.

This seems to me like a recommendation as a secondary anchor and a not recommendation as a primary anchor and I believe it has to do with the inferior resistance showed on the tests comparing with steel anchors. For instance they say about the Spade : *At 5/1 it repeatedly held at the maximum 5,000 lb and on the veering test we recorded up to 5,400 lb!* and about the Mason: *"Even 3:1 scope it held to an astonishing 4,612 lb. It was unfased by the veering tests - refusing to budge at 5,000 lb from all angles".*

Neither the Mason or the Spade were affected (bent) by the veering test even if they hold as much or more on a veering test than what the Fortress on a forward pull. Again, they don't say at what force the Fortress shank bent, they say only : "though the shank bent slightly during our veering test"

Regarding the French test that also had a veering test they could not test on that regard the Fortress because it was been destroyed already by a frontal pull (with a huge holding force, I agree) but they had tested several other aluminum anchors and also bent the Spade shank on the veering test. They finally opted not to test the aluminum anchors on the veering test anymore and they opted to recommend on their conclusion the use of Aluminum anchors only as secondary anchors and that is after all also the use that Spade recommends for their aluminum anchors.



BrianFortress said:


> And Paulo, I will see if I can locate pictures of the high grade steel anchors that were destroyed in the US Navy tests, while the Fortress anchors tested had minimal damage.
> 
> These tests proved beyond a doubt that just because an anchor is manufactured from a high grade of steel does not guarantee that they will be able to withstand heavy loads, or even provide good holding power for that matter.


As you pointed out with the bent Rocna made with an inappropriate steel grade, if a Steel anchor is not well designed and made with a proper steel grade it can bent as easily as an aluminum anchor and has no guarantee of being stronger than an aluminum one. However a proper grade steel in a similar sized and designed anchor will make it stronger than if you apply an identically appropriate aluminum high grade as it is showed on the Spade that has two similar anchors, one made of steel another from aluminum.

Show me on that navy tests a Steel Spade or a Mason supreme destroyed by a force that a Fortress could sustain without damage and you prove your point. Show that happened with any other different designed or made with lower steel grade steel grade anchor and that proves nothing regarding the superior steel resistance, except that you should not buy any of those destroyed anchors .

The opposite is true. It was proven that the Fortress would be rendered useless and bent its shank by veering forces inferior to the ones that had no effect on steel anchors, namely the Spade and the Mason.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## BrianFortress

PCP said:


> It was proven that the Fortress would be rendered useless and bent its shank by veering forces inferior to the ones that had no effect on steel anchors, namely the Spade and the Mason.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Rendered useless with a "slight bend in the shank" ? Hardly.

It is quite simple to understand that it is easier to turn one smaller narrower fluke (such as the Spade or Manson) than two much larger flukes (Danforth or Fortress) when the anchor is deeply embedded into a sea bottom, which of course will result in a greater strain on the shank, no matter what the metal material is.

Whether the testers or you arrive at a conclusion that the Fortress is a great secondary or emergency or stern anchor is fine with us. We have a significant number of customers who bought a Fortress to use it as their main anchor, including the US Coast Guard, but if a boater doesn't feel that it will meet their needs in this regard, so be it.

Safe anchoring,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors


----------



## LinekinBayCD

WDfrmTN said:


> What difference does that make?


Because if you are concerened with what the original poster wrote you should ask him to clarify whether he meant the type of aluminum alloy typically used in aluminum anchors or some super exotic aluminium that would be far too expensive to use in an anchor.

I read the quote to mean he was comparing the typical alloys used in steel anchors with the typical alloys used in aluminum anchors but someone else wrote it so I can not be sure what he meant.


----------



## PCP

LinekinBayCD said:


> Because if you are concerened with what the original poster wrote you should ask him to clarify whether he meant the type of aluminum alloy typically used in aluminum anchors or some super exotic aluminium that would be far too expensive to use in an anchor.
> 
> I read the quote to mean he was comparing the typical alloys used in steel anchors with the typical alloys used in aluminum anchors but someone else wrote it so I can not be sure what he meant.


I mean the type of alloy that you find in expensive steel anchors that you can find on the market like the Spade, Bugel, Mason and the type of alloy that is used in expensive market aluminum anchors like the Fortress or the Aluminum Spade.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## CapitainMike

Sapperwhite said:


> If anyone could provide the strength to weight ratio data for a cider block tied off with clothesline that would be a great help to me.


5 to 7 Oh sorry that is the time here in Greece


----------



## CapitainMike

BrianFortress said:


> Rendered useless with a "slight bend in the shank" ? Hardly.
> 
> It is quite simple to understand that it is easier to turn one smaller narrower fluke (such as the Spade or Manson) than two much larger flukes (Danforth or Fortress) when the anchor is deeply embedded into a sea bottom, which of course will result in a greater strain on the shank, no matter what the metal material is.
> 
> Whether the testers or you arrive at a conclusion that the Fortress is a great secondary or emergency or stern anchor is fine with us. We have a significant number of customers who bought a Fortress to use it as their main anchor, including the US Coast Guard, but if a boater doesn't feel that it will meet their needs in this regard, so be it.
> 
> Safe anchoring,
> Brian
> 
> Fortress Marine Anchors


We all have a choice like our path in life sometimes turns out OK sometimes does not.


----------



## CapitainMike

CapitainMike said:


> Hmmmmmmmmm!!!!!! In Reply to your statement/question I was not making a point I was discussing the relative strengths of an anchor made from Aluminium with a 40% increased in material not size than the same anchor made in steel.
> 
> An anchor rode entirely of chain with a rope snubber will hold just as well as a larger anchor on rope so weight also matters.
> 
> I would be very interested to know if you have a boat of your own now and if so please tell us the anchors you are using.
> 
> You don't seem to know or ignore the fact that there are different sizes recommended by different manufactures for the same size boat or there size tables do not equate weight of vessel to length of vessel in relation to their anchor size choice. This means pushing you to purchase a larger anchor than is needed for their profit margin or maybe not if its to big a reconstruction job to make it fit. Do what I did when I was looking for an anchor collate all the recommended sizes on one sheet. Spade, Manson, Rocna, Buegel, Ultra, etc then make a statement.
> 
> Am I right in believing that you are the gentleman who used to work in the aussie anchor market and then set up a business in Latin America if so I looked at your design which was pretty good but unfortunately you had ceased production I think because of carriage costs.


Paulo
I reiterate I would be very interested to know if you have a boat of your own now and if so please tell us the anchors and set up you are using.

So that I can take you seriously.

Please do not ignore this question as it smacks of ulterior motives


----------



## CapitainMike

*Advocate*

As a devils advocate.

I would like to thank you all for your very different ideas comments and interjections.

It has been very entertaining. But I would like to see the Manufacturers stick to their own forums so that the remain poor mortals can genuinely discuss there own problems findings and experience.

Anchors with all the variables involved could really be called one of the mysteries of the universe and are always good for an intense lively debate/discussion.

There is obviously no final conclusion that anybody can come to.

The safest way is do not use an anchor. haul your boat out of the water.


----------



## PCP

CapitainMike said:


> Paulo
> I reiterate I would be very interested to know if you have a boat of your own now and if so please tell us the anchors and set up you are using.
> 
> So that I can take you seriously.
> 
> Please do not ignore this question as* it smacks of ulterior motives*


   

*I have already replied to that*. Please read all the posts!


----------



## Classic30

CapitainMike said:


> There is obviously no final conclusion that anybody can come to.
> 
> The safest way is do not use an anchor. haul your boat out of the water.


..and this is coming from someone supposedly sailing a Cobra 850 in the Med?? 

Methinks you've lost all your credibility (what credibility you may have had) right there..


----------



## CapitainMike

Thank you for your reply, but I am talking about "sailors" who come to the Med for a fortnights holiday in the summer then hand their charter boat back and go home or leave their boat in a marina from October till May.

Those whose boats winter in Lefkadas, Corfu, Preveza, Aegina, Athens Glyfada 1-2-3, Olympic Marina Sounion, Leros, Kos and the Turkish coast Mamaris etc and they are thousands of miles away tucked up with their central heating while others do the dirty work.

Much to a lot of peoples envy I live and sail in the Med and have done since 1966.

My base is Amorgos Where it is a rough winter anchorage and my boat the aforementioned Cobra850 is in the water all year round. Re: Credibilty I don't really care what you think about my credibilty or not.

I have nothing to prove to anyone including you and you are entitled to your own opinion right or wrong. I would defend your right to voice your opinion!

If you want safety do what the Vikings did beach your boat every night.

This is the boat between my berth the small fishing boat.

















Storm Building My boat me with wooly hat and boat hook.


----------



## smackdaddy

Nice boat Cap. And freakin' beautiful sailing area.


----------



## CapitainMike

Thank you for your reply, but I am talking about "sailors" who come to the Med for a fortnights holiday in the summer then hand their charter boat back and go home or leave their boat in a marina from October till May.

Those whose boats winter in Lefkadas, Corfu, Preveza, Aegina, Athens Glyfada 1-2-3, Olympic Marina Sounion, Leros, Kos and the Turkish coast Mamaris etc and they are thousands of miles away tucked up with their central heating while others do their dirty work.

Much to a lot of peoples envy I live and sail in the Med and have done since 1966.

My base is Amorgos Where it is a rough winter anchorage and my boat the aforementioned Cobra850 is in the water all year round. Re: Credibilty I don't really care what you think about my credibilty or not.

I am 70 years old.
I have nothing to prove to anyone including you and you are entitled to your own opinion right or wrong. and so am I. I would defend your right to voice your opinion! as you should mine!

If you want safety do what the Vikings did beach your boat every night.








Viking anchor wood and stone.










Norwegian anchor 5' 6" long of the same period Iron was extremely valuable.
This is the boat between my berth the small fishing boat.

















Storm Building My boat me with wooly hat and boat hook. All the brown C**p in the water including the dead cat is what was washed into the sea from a flash storm and poured over the quay 18" at a great rate. We could see the height as it rose up the lamp posts.









Me and my boat.










Kiato. Korinth sea on the right me, on the left my wife in the middle a sailing friend Martin from another boat


----------



## CapitainMike

smackdaddy said:


> Nice boat Cap. And freakin' beautiful sailing area.


Thank you Smackdaddy I think I am very lucky to be here.


----------



## redunculous

CapitainMike said:


> Thank you Smackdaddy I think I am very lucky to be here.


Everybody is lucky to be here

its just recognising that fact that counts


----------



## CapitainMike

redunculous said:


> Everybody is lucky to be here
> 
> its just recognising that fact that counts


Yes but I'm lucky in more ways than one with my medical history wife and family 
and everything else.


----------



## redunculous

keep living life to the fullest Capitain Mike - its too short to waste


----------



## LinekinBayCD

redunculous said:


> Everybody is lucky to be here
> 
> its just recognising that fact that counts


+1.

Tomorrow is promised to no one.


----------



## T34C

For anyone interested there has been another independent test performed of the steel used by Rocna... and it ain't good. This one was done in the US.


----------



## T34C

See post #781 
Manson vs. Rocna


----------



## Maine Sail

Here's a direct link to post #781 by Delfin:

*Post #781 Rocna Lab Test Results (LINK)*


----------



## smackdaddy

Can you guys ask Delfin if you can copy that post here? I'd be interested in seeing it.

PS - never mind, I asked his permission over at CF.


----------



## smackdaddy

*Posted by Delfin on various forums, and used with his permission:*



> 1 of 2:
> Since this is a topic of general interest on a vital piece of safety equipment, I'm posting the below to the 4 sites I participate in, not to beat up on Rocna, but because most everyone with a boat needs an anchor, and sometimes one's boat and the safety of the crew depends on the integrity of the anchor manufacturer. By way of full disclosure, I use a 176# Bruce type Claw on Delfin, and it has served me well, so far. I have zero financial interest in any anchor manufacturer or marine distributor.
> 
> I recently purchased a Rocna 22# anchor for testing because it seemed as if there were many opinions on the strength of this anchor, but not enough objective data to make a final conclusion.
> 
> To test my Rocna, I took it to NW Laboratories, who have been performing metal testing in the Seattle area since 1896. An initial hardness test was performed, since tensile strength can be correlated to hardness, and on the basis of that test the anchor was submitted to full testing to determine whether the steel used matched the grade of steel advertised by Rocna. By way of background on the importance of steel quality, here is what Rocna has to say about the steel it uses:
> 
> _The shank on any anchor is a common failure point, normally bending when a high lateral load is applied (for instance, when the anchor fouls on a submarine obstacle and is jammed). For this reason, the shank on the Rocna is a high tensile quenched and tempered steel, with a grade of around 800 MPa. Its pure resistance to bending is around three times that of mild steel. This adds to the price of the anchor, but compromising this strength is not something we would entertain.- Anchor materials (Rocna Knowledge Base) _
> 
> In this, Rocna is stating that their anchors will be more expensive than cheaper anchors because they want to avoid a "common failure point", which would be the bending of anchor shanks with steel that had an Ultimate Tensile strength less than 800 Mega Pascals (MPa), or 120,000 psi. This type of steel meets the standards set in ASTM A514, has a Yield Tensile strength of 720 MPa and is available from Bisalloy Steel in Australia, as well as other companies worldwide, including sources in China where the Rocna is made.
> 
> In discussing why Rocna doesn't manufacture an aluminum alloy anchor, they expand on the importance of and the reason for using 800 MPa high tensile steel in their anchors:
> 
> _For example, an aluminum shank would not be able to possess the same tensile strength as the 800 grade steel we use without being significantly thicker, which would then affect setting performance in hard sea-beds. Anchor materials (Rocna Knowledge Base)_
> 
> In other words, without high tensile 800 MPa steel in the shank their anchor would have to be thicker to withstand the loads typically imposed during normal usage, and this would affect the balance of the anchor adversely when it comes to setting ability.
> 
> Finally, in the User's Guide that comes with each Rocna there is a statement that underscores how the Rocna anchor is superior to its competition because it addresses one of the shortcomings of most anchors - weakness in the shank:
> 
> _"The Rocna was designed to address the limitations shared by all older and most newer anchors available. These designs suffer from &#8230;.._ _"insufficient strength in the shank or other load bearing components."_
> 
> Clearly, Rocna believes that the unique design of the Rocna anchor requires the very best components, and competitive anchors that do not meet Rocna's standards are suggested to be inadequate due to inherent "limitations".
> 
> Attached in the first image below is a summary of the test results from NW Labs in the form of a summary comparison of the Rocna 22# I purchased to its closest analog - the Manson 25# Supreme. The test itself is in the second image. I chose the Manson to compare to mine for a number of reasons.
> 
> First, Manson says that they use 800 MPa, 120,000 psi steel in their anchor shanks, and have published tests confirming this. The link to those test results for the Manson 25 is here: http://manson-marine.co.nz/SitePage...ds/11-037 Tensile Manson Anchor 18Apr11VB.pdf
> 
> The second reason is that the Manson has a similar design to that of the Rocna, and shows equivalent holding power in most tests.
> 
> The third reason is that the Manson is available in North America and the U.K. I don't have the prices of the Manson in the U.K., but in the U.S., they are significantly less expensive than the Rocna.
> 
> The final reason is that according to Ned Wood, the manager of Manson _"Honestly, I have never seen or had a complaint from a customer about a bent Supreme Shank, ever. Over 12,000 sold and I am fairly sure I would have heard of something but never have heard, nor has anyone here."_ Since we have pictures of bent shanks on the Rocna, something is clearly going on, so I thought a careful comparison between the two products should shed some light. I can't verify whether Mr. Wood's statement is true, but I did ask him if I could quote him, so I assume it is the truth.
> 
> While the test results are self explanatory, here is the punch line, in my opinion. The Manson has about 14% more steel at the mid point of its shank compared to the Rocna. Increases in cross sectional area proportionally increases resistance to lateral bending, so the Manson would be 14% stronger than the Rocna based on this measurement even if they used the same steel. However, the Manson does use 800 MPa steel for its product, so the yield strength of the Manson is about 30% greater than the lesser steel used in the Rocna. Higher yield translates directly into bend resistance, so on the basis of these two data points, the Manson is half again stronger than the Rocna at 2/3 the price.
> 
> Because the shank of an anchor represents a lever, it is possible to put high loads on the shank with lateral loading that exceeds the yield strength (bend resistance) of the steel used. The materials used in the Rocna have resulted in bent shanks; of the Manson - not so much. Presumably Rocna well understands this potential failure point and how to avoid it with the right materials. They didn't use those materials on my anchor, so it is de facto defective and a threat to my boat. Not good.
> 
> With anchors available from manufacturers of integrity and great holding power made of appropriate materials, like Fortress, Sarca, Manson and others, it is hard to understand why anyone would pay more for less by purchasing a Rocna, especially since by their own definition, their product is unsafe. Manufacturers of safety equipment should be held to a high standard of honesty, and retailers of those products should take care when promoting products that are known to be defective.
> 
> For those who haven't had enough punishment from this thread yet, I'll post the details of how the Rocna was tested, as well as other photos of the test subject. I'll be returning my Rocna to West Marine for a refund based on the simple fact that it doesn't meet the specs advertised by Rocna. I assume they'll give me my money back, but we'll see.


----------



## smackdaddy

*Posted by Delfin on various forums, and used with his permission:*



> 2 of 2
> More punishment for the truly geeky:
> 
> First, some term definitions from the above report. Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) is the force required to break a standard sample of the steel being tested. The first image below shows the shape of the standard sample which was subjected to a pulling force with the maximum force before breaking the sample recorded as the UTS. Rocna advertises 800 MPa UTS steel, in my anchor, they used 697 MPa.
> 
> Yield Tensile Strength (YTS) is the maximum force a sample will absorb and still spring back to its original shape. This is the measurement that matters to a boater, since resistance to side loading is a function of the YTS of the shank steel. Rocna advertises 690 MPa YTS steel, in my anchor, they used 626 MPa.
> 
> Elongation is the percent the metal stretches before it breaks.
> 
> MPa are mega pascals, a metric measurement of force. The English equivalent is pounds square inch. 800 MPa equals 120,000 psi.
> 
> To test the metal, the lab cut a couple of small pieces out of the shank, embedded them in a bonding media and examined them under the microscope to determine which direction the grain of the metal ran. A picture of this test piece is in the second image. Steel develops a grain along the direction flat steel plate is rolled. It will have higher strength when the force applied is in line with this 'grain', so to ensure that the results we got were the maximum possible for the anchor, the direction of the grain was determined before cutting out the standard sample shown in the first picture.
> The reference standard for the metal was what Rocna says they use - 800 MPa steel. This is the same steel that Manson uses, and it meets ASTM A514 standards. The reference to Bisalloy 80 on the test is because it is 800 MPa, A514 steel and is used by Manson in their manufacture.
> 
> To accurately compare the Manson to the Rocna I consulted a friend who is a structural engineer to determine what changes in lateral bending force resulted from differences in the cross sectional area of the two anchors.
> 
> The Rocna and the Manson are designed to have as much of the total anchor weight on the tip as possible. To achieve this, the shank has to be fairly thin. Even mild steel (YTS 400+ MPa) would work just fine under pulling conditions only since the chain or rope rode would generally break before the steel reached its YTS. However, the length of the shank creates a lever that multiplies the lateral pulling in a side load to the point where the shank will easily bend unless it is made out of steel with a relatively high YTS steel. The Rocna is designed for this higher grade of steel, but for reasons unknown Rocna has elected to advertise one grade and use another. The result is an unsafe anchor, whose defects will remain hidden until the boater is depending the most on the integrity of the manufacturer.
> 
> Since I am not an engineer, I welcome any correction from more knowledgeable forumites on any mistakes in my analysis.


----------



## PCP

The collection of bent Rocna that they have posted on the other forum is interesting too

It don't seems to me that the problems has only to do with steel quality but also with insufficient thickness of the shank where more force is needed.

For the ones that think that the Rocna was made with very low quality steel let me show you this table and this link:










World Steel Association

We can see that the steel used by Rocna even if don't meet the advertised is still a high-strength steel. The steel quality advertised by Mason is really top of the shelf.

You can see for instance that even the most hard aluminum alloys have a lesser tensile strength and by far.

Aluminium alloy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it seems to me not only a case of inappropriate material but also of inadequate design in what concerns the needed thickness of parts to provide the needed resistance.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## zedboy

PCP said:


> The collection of bent Rocna that they have posted on the other forum is interesting too


It's interesting if you think about it though: if the Rocna is according to this test coming in below spec, it's not way out of line - yielding at 630 MPa rather than 800. That's less than 25% off their advertised strength, and should have been well within the (hopefully!) 2-3X safety margin.

Upshot: if there are guys hitting loads that are bending their Rocnas, there should be guys hitting loads only a little bigger and bending their Mansons (notwithstanding that Manson says it's never happened).


----------



## PCP

zedboy said:


> It's interesting if you think about it though: if the Rocna is according to this test coming in below spec, it's not way out of line - yielding at 630 MPa rather than 800. That's less than 25% off their advertised strength, and should have been well within the (hopefully!) 2-3X safety margin.
> 
> Upshot: if there are guys hitting loads that are bending their Rocnas, there should be guys hitting loads only a little bigger and bending their Mansons (notwithstanding that Manson says it's never happened).


I have edited my previous post while you were posting. Read what I have added. I think it goes in accordance with what you are saying

Regards

Paulo


----------



## zedboy

PCP said:


> I have edited my previous post while you were posting. Read what I have added. I think it goes in accordance with what you are saying


Indeed. The question is not the quality of the steel involved, but of the overall design - if Manson's shank is twice the cross section of Rocna's, that will end up being their safety margin.

More testing needed!


----------



## Noelex

"The Manson has about 14% more steel at the mid point of its shank compared to the Rocna"

The Manson and Rocna anchors that are being compared are not the same size. The Manson is 13.6% heavier (25 verses 22lB). It seems reasonable that the shank would be increased by a similar amount.


----------



## PCP

Another question is: How many Rocna and Mason supreme were sold.

If there are 15 Rocna to each Mason there will be 15 times more bent Rocna 

I don't know the percentage, it seems to me that there are a lot more Rocna than Mason. I am wrong? Someone has an idea?

Here in Europe there are few Rocna and I never saw a Mason and there are plenty Spade. It seems that in the USA it's the inverse. 

Regards

Paulo


----------



## LinekinBayCD

*West Marine's Position*

I'm wondering if anyone has ever contacted West marine about the Rocna / China quality issues? Since I bought my Rocna at WM when I get a little free time I think I'll call and find out if they know about the issues that have been kicked around and if they do, whether they have a position on it.


----------



## CapitainMike

So pleased I bought a Manson


----------



## LinekinBayCD

*Suncoast Marine / Rocna*

I just re-read the report and noticed that it referenced a Suncoast Marine barcode. I thought that when Suncoast was the North American distributor for Rocna's that all North American Rocna's were made somewhere in Canada. Is it certain that the tested anchor was made in China? Do we have a clean chain of evidence?


----------



## CapitainMike

noelex77 said:


> "The Manson has about 14% more steel at the mid point of its shank compared to the Rocna"
> 
> The Manson and Rocna anchors that are being compared are not the same size. The Manson is 13.6% heavier (25 verses 22lB). It seems reasonable that the shank would be increased by a similar amount.


Hi noelex77. Glad I bought a Manson Supreme, all electrics done except mast head


----------



## CapitainMike

I think that this will seriously affect Rocnas Market and Financial Position May be Goodbye Rocna who knows only time will tell


----------



## CapitainMike

LinekinBayCD said:


> I just re-read the report and noticed that it referenced a Suncoast Marine barcode. I thought that when Suncoast was the North American distributor for Rocna's that all North American Rocna's were made somewhere in Canada. Is it certain that the tested anchor was made in China? Do we have a clean chain of evidence?


From What I have read some where Suncoast Marine | About Us
ABOUT US
Suncoast Marine Ltd

Free Spirit at anchor in Moorea

Suncoast Marine Ltd., established in 2004 in Vancouver, British Columbia, is a Canadian manufacturer of high-quality cost-effective products for coastal and blue-water cruisers. 
Suncoast Marine founder Mark Pocock is a keen cruiser who has sailed his Spencer 44 Free Spirit extensively in the Pacific Northwest, and recently completed an offshore passage from Canada to New Zealand via the South Pacific. In New Zealand Mark met Peter Smith, Kiwi cruiser and entrepreneur who had just completed the design of a new anchor, the Rocna. Impressed with the unique combination of quality, performance, and cost-effectiveness afforded by the Rocna, Mark established Suncoast Marine to manufacture these anchors for North American boaters.

As other products of comparable quality, performance, and value are developed, they will be incorporated into the Suncoast Marine product line.

Peter Smith, designer of the Rocna Peter Smith, designer of the Rocna, has been cruising and building boats since the 1970's, with his most recent project being his 50' 27 ton aluminum alloy world cruiser Kiwi Roa. On his way back to New Zealand from England aboard Kiwi Roa, however, Peter was disturbed at how frequently he dragged anchor in the soft mud anchorages found in the English East Coast, the Chesapeake, Delaware Bay, and even in Islington Bay in New Zealand. Kiwi Roa carried a 110 lb CQR, an 88 lb Delta, and a 110 lb Bruce, which seems an impressive enough array of ground tackle, but still there was always that feeling of insecurity.

Peter had used every type of anchor known to man over the years, and had developed some clear ideas as to the key features of an anchor which would improve upon those which had gone before. A 50kg prototype of the Rocna was built, tested, and refined, then proven out aboard Kiwi Roa during a 10 month circumnavigation of New Zealand. Anchoring experiences included one memorable bout of winds to 70 knot winds for 10 days in Stewart Island, and another 2 day assault of 50 knot winds in Akaroa, during which other boats were dragging across the anchorage...in hundreds of sets, Kiwi Roa never budged. Peter was satisfied that he had achieved his objectives, and had developed an anchor which he could rely on under all conditions


----------



## smackdaddy

CapitainMike said:


> In New Zealand Mark met Peter Smith, Kiwi cruiser and entrepreneur who had just completed the design of a new anchor, the Rocna. Impressed with the unique combination of quality, performance, and cost-effectiveness afforded by the Rocna, Mark established Suncoast Marine to manufacture these anchors for North American boaters.


Okay - now it's getting interesting. So if Delfin's tested anchor was a Suncoast/Canadian made anchor - and it wasn't up to spec...what does this all really mean?

Did Rocna move the manufacturing to China to better ensure quality? Wouldn't _that_ be ironic?

Things are never quite what they seem, eh?


----------



## marinextreme

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - now it's getting interesting. So if Delfin's tested anchor was a Suncoast/Canadian made anchor - and it wasn't up to spec...what does this all really mean?
> 
> Did Rocna move the manufacturing to China to better ensure quality? Wouldn't _that_ be ironic?
> 
> Things are never quite what they seem, eh?


Production in Canada ceased in 2008 when Rocna shifted all supply for the USA market to New Zealand.

In early 2009 the last shipment from NZ went to Canada and after that all production for the USA market originated in China.

Production shifted to China for one reason only..PRICE


----------



## tdw

marinextreme said:


> Production in Canada ceased in 2008 when Rocna shifted all supply for the USA market to New Zealand.
> 
> In early 2009 the last shipment from NZ went to Canada and after that all production for the USA market originated in China.
> 
> Production shifted to China for one reason only..PRICE


Just to be quite clear about it , MarineExtreme is Grant King former production manager at Rocna. Whether that makes him 'disgruntled ex employee' or 'knowledgeable insider' is not for me to say.

Certainly his attitude has changed over the years in regard to Rocna quality.

As to how this brouhaha is going to effect Rocna, who knows. They've been deathly quiet forum wise of late though I havn't been watching the YBW thread recently. I'll certainly be sending the Australian distributer a copy of the report for comment.


----------



## CapitainMike

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - now it's getting interesting. So if Delfin's tested anchor was a Suncoast/Canadian made anchor - and it wasn't up to spec...what does this all really mean?
> 
> Did Rocna move the manufacturing to China to better ensure quality? Wouldn't _that_ be ironic?
> 
> Things are never quite what they seem, eh?


Perhaps it was up to spec. but it was Rocna' spec.

These people mostly reckon that Taiwan is better than China Are Taiwan tools better quality than China tools? - The Garage Journal Board

Albert Einstein (Physicist, 1879 - 1955)

The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.

Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.


----------



## CapitainMike

LinekinBayCD said:


> I just re-read the report and noticed that it referenced a Suncoast Marine barcode. I thought that when Suncoast was the North American distributor for Rocna's that all North American Rocna's were made somewhere in Canada. Is it certain that the tested anchor was made in China? Do we have a clean chain of evidence?


If you removed and saved or had a photo of the bar code you could possibly learn more.
There are a few different codes used the UPC.
HowStuffWorks "How UPC Bar Codes Work"

EAN barcodes, Code 39 barcodes, I2of5 barcodes, Code 128 barcodes, UCCEAN barcodes, UPC barcodes, GS1 Databar barcodes or PDF417 barcodes

First try a supermarket if they can't read it find out what barcode hardware reader they are using most readers can be set up with dip switches for different software and its surprising what free software can be downloaded from the net.


----------



## smackdaddy

tdw said:


> ...As to how this brouhaha is going to effect Rocna, who knows. They've been deathly quiet forum wise of late though I havn't been watching the YBW thread recently. I'll certainly be sending the Australian distributer a copy of the report for comment.


It's not good any way you slice it (pardon the pun). One thing it will show, without question, is how much of their business is driven by forums.

And it should also prove a cautionary tale to all manufacturers in regards to making sure you can back up your marketing language/approach.


----------



## T34C

CapitainMike said:


> If you removed and saved or had a photo of the bar code you could possibly learn more.
> There are a few different codes used the UPC.
> HowStuffWorks "How UPC Bar Codes Work"
> 
> EAN barcodes, Code 39 barcodes, I2of5 barcodes, Code 128 barcodes, UCCEAN barcodes, UPC barcodes, GS1 Databar barcodes or PDF417 barcodes
> 
> First try a supermarket if they can't read it find out what barcode hardware reader they are using most readers can be set up with dip switches for different software and its surprising what free software can be downloaded from the net.


I think these days pretty much any smart phone can download a free app to read bar codes.


----------



## CapitainMike

T34C said:


> I think these days pretty much any smart phone can download a free app to read bar codes.


Yes thats true but I think that it will only read one bar code. You got to get the right app to read the particular ba code then set up the reader to use it.


----------



## tdw

smackdaddy said:


> It's not good any way you slice it (pardon the pun). One thing it will show, without question, is how much of their business is driven by forums.
> 
> And it should also prove a cautionary tale to all manufacturers in regards to making sure you can back up your marketing language/approach.


Smack, 
My immediate response to that is to wonder whether or not word of mouth is more important than forum speak. It's pretty obvious that many of the participants in this debate (here, there, SA and most importantly YBW) have been bogus or at best simply pretending to be impartial observers shocked and horrified by this supposedly ungentlemanly conduct by Rocna. I still have my doubts about the word of former employees I must confess and I also find it interesting just how few dissatisfied Rocna customers have come forward.

I can only say they I have no issues with my Rocna but then it is probably too new to have seen survival level stress. Now after all these years of using Danforths and CQRs (both genuine and fake) plus the current Rocna I've never managed to bend a shank on any of them. OTOH from a dragging point of view the Danforths were the worst, CQR rock solid except in sand on one occasion and the Rocna no probs other than once when I admit I didn't have out enough scope for the depth.

My suspicion remains that had Craig Smith not been such an overbearing arsewipe for all these years this debate would never have happened. Reality is that Rocna has been (in anchor market terms) a striking sales success and a lot of this brouhaha is simply Rocna competitors and affiliates (distributors and the like) plus one disaffected former employee who have led the charge.

Now I am not saying Rocna has been above reproach. It does appear that they have a metal quality issue to address and that they have taken marketing hype BS to a level usually reserved for oil companies, politicians and diet plan spruikers. That much is certain but surely it is experience in the field and not online whingers that will ultimately decide Rocna's fate.

I for one look forward to revisiting this issue in six months time.

ps - I hope over time to get opinions on anchors from cruisers who are anchoring out on a semi permanent basis. The first couple I have spoken seriously with re anchors (41' moderate displacement sloop) use a Bruce as primary and a Fortress as secondary. After the boat was sailed from Sweden to Australia by original owner and then taken on two Pacific Oceania cruises by current owner they reported that the Bruce had never let them down and as they had never used the Fortress they couldn't comment. Other than that the half dozen or so Rocna owners I know of have zero complaints other than an issue that plagues most non stainless new generation anchors and that is mud collection. Oh yes, I also know of some complaints (we are one) with small imperfections in galvanising.


----------



## T34C

td- I think you summed it up pretty well except that AS has had something in excess of 34,300 views of that anchor thread. Of course a lot of hits are from the same people regularly checking back, but comparatively it is a small forum and there aren't that many Rocna competitors...


----------



## paul323

TD - as a lurker on this thread - I have a few simple takeaways:

1) No one anchor is perfect

2) Which is good, as you probably need more than one anchor if you have anything larger than a canoe.

3) The Fortress is awesome - weight/holding power - so that's one.

4) The newer anchor designs - like Manson and Rocna - appear to offer strong advantages over classical designs. As for those two - let's face it - they are very similar. Except that Rocna displays arrogance, poor customer service, lower quality at a higher price ("first mover advantage" - first to market charges a premium). 

I regard anchors as a critical safety device; I'll pay a premium for a quality product that my life may depend upon. Rocna - sadly - now fails that test. For me.

And guys, let's not get too wrapped around the axle about marketing. Heck, everything in the US seems to be branded the biggest in the world, the best in the world, yada yada. Personally I filter all that hyperbole out, and focus on facts - test data and standards certifications. And the collective wisdom of you guys!!!


----------



## tdw

paul323 said:


> TD - as a lurker on this thread - I have a few simple takeaways:
> 
> 1) No one anchor is perfect
> 
> 2) Which is good, as you probably need more than one anchor if you have anything larger than a canoe.
> 
> 3) The Fortress is awesome - weight/holding power - so that's one.
> 
> 4) The newer anchor designs - like Manson and Rocna - appear to offer strong advantages over classical designs. As for those two - let's face it - they are very similar. Except that Rocna displays arrogance, poor customer service, lower quality at a higher price ("first mover advantage" - first to market charges a premium).
> 
> I regard anchors as a critical safety device; I'll pay a premium for a quality product that my life may depend upon. Rocna - sadly - now fails that test. For me.
> 
> And guys, let's not get too wrapped around the axle about marketing. Heck, everything in the US seems to be branded the biggest in the world, the best in the world, yada yada. Personally I filter all that hyperbole out, and focus on facts - test data and standards certifications. And the collective wisdom of you guys!!!


Paul,
It does seem that Rocna and in particular the now prodigal son CS plumbed new depths in the apparently genteel world of anchors. For that they are now paying a price, in particular due to the aforementioned prodigal being a thoroughly unlikeable oik.



> td- I think you summed it up pretty well except that AS has had something in excess of 34,300 views of that anchor thread. Of course a lot of hits are from the same people regularly checking back, but comparatively it is a small forum and there aren't that many Rocna competitors...


T34,
I guess it is still quite interesting that 34,300 views on AS, many many more on YBW and also threads on SailNet, CF and SA yet a serious paucity of criticism from Rocna customers. I still think it is possible that much (emphasise much , not all) of the debate could well have been generated by the opposition. Call me a cynic if you will.


----------



## marinextreme

CapitainMike said:


> Yes thats true but I think that it will only read one bar code. You got to get the right app to read the particular ba code then set up the reader to use it.


The Suncoast barcodes on the West Marine anchors were put on in China so that when they are shipped into store they are "sale ready" and able to be read by West's scanners.

They were supplied by Suncoast and negated the need for Suncoast to unwrap each anchor and affix the barcode for Wests.

Nothing sinister about it, just cuts the handling time for Suncoast.


----------



## Maine Sail

tdw said:


> T34,
> I guess it is still quite interesting that 34,300 views on AS, many many more on YBW and also threads on SailNet, CF and SA *yet a serious paucity of criticism from Rocna customers. I still think it is possible that much (emphasise much , not all) of the debate could well have been generated by the opposition. Call me a cynic if you will.*


OK you're a cynic. I am a Rocna customer and also VERY, VERY, VERY disgusted by all the misinformation.

I will no longer recommend the Rocna and am instead now suggesting the Manson Supreme to anyone whom asks. The design is great, the execution of everything else about it is horrid....


----------



## PCP

tdw said:


> Smack,
> My immediate response to that is to wonder whether or not word of mouth is more important than forum speak. It's pretty obvious that many of the participants in this debate (here, there, SA and most importantly YBW) have been bogus or at best simply pretending to be impartial observers shocked and horrified by this supposedly ungentlemanly conduct by Rocna. I still have my doubts about the word of former employees I must confess and I also find it interesting just how few dissatisfied Rocna customers have come forward.
> 
> ....
> 
> My suspicion remains that had Craig Smith not been such an overbearing arsewipe for all these years this debate would never have happened. Reality is that Rocna has been (in anchor market terms) a striking sales success and a lot of this brouhaha is simply Rocna competitors and affiliates (distributors and the like) plus one disaffected former employee who have led the charge.
> 
> Now I am not saying Rocna has been above reproach. It does appear that they have a metal quality issue to address and that they have taken marketing hype BS to a level usually reserved for oil companies, politicians and diet plan spruikers. That much is certain but surely it is experience in the field and not online whingers that will ultimately decide Rocna's fate.
> 
> ...


Well, it seems that Rocna has several problems and the worse is the one with the attitude. They were the ones that have taken an almost defamatory stance against competition and also making statements that were not true regarding its anchors, namely in what regards steel quality.

It is also true that I have seen plenty of photos of bent Rocnas and no pictures of bent Spades or Mason. With Mason we can say that it is natural because it sells a lot less than Rocna but that's not the case with Spade that sells in Europe a lot more than Rocna.

It is also truth that after all this noise and some facts regarding Rocna (bent anchors and metallurgic inconsistencies with the metal grade advertised) what would be expected was that Rocna make a statment expalining their point of view regarding these facts. No statement of any kind, no position regarding the facts, but the thread from YBW was gone under the threat of legall action (the thread disapeared, they call it "suspended" ) and it would be interesting to know if the responsible of this forum have been also threaten with similar procedures.

Not a very straightforward approach I would say and one that can raise suspicion.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Maine Sail

PCP said:


> It is also true that I have seen plenty of photos of bent Rocnas and no pictures of bent Spades or Mason. With Mason we can say that it is natural because it sells a lot less than Rocna


Actually I don't think that is true at all. The Manson Supreme, at least over here, outsells the Rocna. Also many large volume distributors like Defender and Hamilton Marine for example don't even sell the Rocna only the Manson Supreme. My local West Marine also out sells Rocna with the Manson Supreme and they sell both but only "stock" the Manson Supreme.

I know Manson has claimed they have sold close to 20,000 Supremes and I highly doubt that Rocna has sold that many, but maybe they have on a world wide basis. Around here the Supreme outnumbers the Rocna by about 2:1. I own one of each and the Manson was a lot less money and available from many different chandlers making it a lot more price competitive.

When I bought my Rocna I had to special order from British Columbia and the shipping was OFFENSIVE. Shipping alone cost me about what a cheap Bruce clone would. Manson, at that time, was easily available at our local Hamilton Marine store right off the shelf with no shipping and back then was over $300.00 less.


----------



## PCP

Maine Sail said:


> Actually I don't think that is true at all. The Manson Supreme, at least over here, outsells the Rocna. Also many large volume distributors like Defender and Hamilton Marine for example don't even sell the Rocna only the Manson Supreme. My local West Marine also out sells Rocna with the Manson Supreme and they sell both but only "stock" the Manson Supreme.
> 
> I know Manson has claimed they have sold close to 20,000 Supremes and I highly doubt that Rocna has sold that many, but maybe they have on a world wide basis. Around here the Supreme outnumbers the Rocna by about 2:1. I own one of each and the Manson was a lot less money and available from many different chandlers making it a lot more price competitive.
> 
> When I bought my Rocna I had to special order from British Columbia and the shipping was OFFENSIVE. Shipping alone cost me about what a cheap Bruce clone would. Manson, at that time, was easily available at our local Hamilton Marine store right off the shelf with no shipping and back then was over $300.00 less.


I had no idea. Rocna publicity had given me the idea they were the biggest world anchor manufacturer . I stand corrected. On Europe you can see lots of Spade, some Rocna but few Mason, at least that's what I have noticed on Western med.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Noelex

PCP said:


> It is also true that I have seen plenty of photos of bent Rocnas and no pictures of bent Spades or Mason. With Mason we can say that it is natural because it sells a lot less than Rocna but that's not the case with Spade that sells in Europe a lot more than Rocna.


I have not seen any bent shanks on a Manson supreme, but have seen a bent fluke.
In Europe there are a lot more Rocnas than Manson supremes on cruising boats, but the reverse applies in the USA.


----------



## PCP

noelex77 said:


> ....
> In Europe there are a lot more Rocnas than Manson supremes on cruising boats, but the reverse applies in the USA.


Hey!!!Main Sail is stating the opposite You have to sort it out because I don't have a clew about that

Anyway 20 000 anchors (Mason) is a lot of anchors for a relatively new product. If Rocna have sold another 20 000, with the Spade, Delta, Brittany Claw, Fortress and Bruce, I wonder how many anchors are for each boat

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Noelex

PCP said:


> Hey!!!Main Sail is stating the opposite


Main sail is from the USA. I think he is saying the same thing.

The total numbers are more importantant and I think probably worldwide there are many more Manson Supremes sold, but since the sales figures are confidential its difficult to know.
In this part of the world for every 10 new generation anchors seen 6 would be Rocna 3 Spade and 1 Manson Supreme, but this is very dependent on local availability and cost.


----------



## PCP

noelex77 said:


> Main sail is from the USA. I think he is saying the same thing.
> 
> The total numbers are more importantant and I think probably worldwide there are many more Manson Supremes sold, but since the sales figures are confidential its difficult to know.
> In this part of the world for every 10 new generation anchors seen 6 would be Rocna 3 Spade and 1 Manson Supreme, but this is very dependent on local availability and cost.


Sorry about the confusion but you don't have on your logo your home place

Your part of the World? Oceania? Europa?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Noelex

PCP said:


> Sorry about the confusion but you don't have on your logo your home place
> 
> Your part of the World? Oceania? Europa?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Yes sorry I can see how that does confuse things. I am currently in Greece. I have been in Europe for the last few years. I have seen a rapid increase in the number of Rocna anchors here, maybe because there is a distributor in the north Ionian. Most of the Spade anchors are on French yachts.
Very few Manson Supremes.
Most of the American boats, surprisingly, have CQR and Bruce anchors, but many find that they don't work well in the hard sand and weed in this part of the world and are looking to change.


----------



## T34C

PCP said:


> I had no idea. Rocna publicity had given me the idea they were the biggest world anchor manufacturer . I stand corrected. On Europe you can see lots of Spade, some Rocna but few Mason, at least that's what I have noticed on Western med.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


You must be the only person in the world still listening to Rocna marketing. Isn't the hole point of this thread and others proving they are full of crap?


----------



## smackdaddy

T34C said:


> You must be the only person in the world still listening to Rocna marketing. Isn't the hole point of this thread and others proving they are full of crap?


I always thought that the point of this thread was to work out the truth without the hype/crap-slinging.

And it turns out that a lot of hands are somewhat dirty in this whole fiasco...which should be no surprise to anyone.

All in all, I think it's been a hell of a thread.


----------



## PCP

noelex77 said:


> Yes sorry I can see how that does confuse things. I am currently in Greece. I have been in Europe for the last few years. I have seen a rapid increase in the number of Rocna anchors here, maybe because there is a distributor in the north Ionian. Most of the Spade anchors are on French yachts.
> Very few Manson Supremes.
> Most of the American boats, surprisingly, have CQR and Bruce anchors, but many find that they don't work well in the hard sand and weed in this part of the world and are looking to change.


Yes it can be confusing specially because were I sail (Portugal, France, Spain Italy, Croatia) there are a lot more Spade than Rocna and few Mason. But there are even more Delta and Claw anchors. Spade is the one that is growing at least for the ones that care. Most French boats come from the factory with a Britany others come with Delta only some German boats come with Spade. I don't know any that comes with a Rocna or Mason.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## tdw

> MaineSail - OK you're a cynic. I am a Rocna customer and also VERY, VERY, VERY disgusted by all the misinformation.
> 
> I will no longer recommend the Rocna and am instead now suggesting the Manson Supreme to anyone whom asks. The design is great, the execution of everything else about it is horrid....


Maine, I'm in complete agreement with you. If not in this thread then in the threads on YBW, AS , I think SA and I'm sure somewhere here I've said that in light of this business I would today buy a Manson instead of the Rocna.

I am in no way an apologist for Rocna or Craig Smith, I am however somewhat sceptical in regard to the credentials of some of the anti Rocna boo squad.

All of which is why I said that I'll be interested to come back to this in six months time. By which time I'll be using a Bruce, but the why of that story is for another day. 



> PCP - It is also truth that after all this noise and some facts regarding Rocna (bent anchors and metallurgic inconsistencies with the metal grade advertised) what would be expected was that Rocna make a statment expalining their point of view regarding these facts. No statement of any kind, no position regarding the facts, but the thread from YBW was gone under the threat of legall action (the thread disapeared, they call it "suspended" ) and it would be interesting to know if the responsible of this forum have been also threaten with similar procedures.
> 
> Not a very straightforward approach I would say and one that can raise suspicion


Paulo, 
The YBW suspension is presumably because they are legal action shy. I don't know the details but YBW were compelled to make a large payment re supposed libel some time back and its thought apparently that fear of a repeat is why that thread was pulled. The discussion however continues in another thread though its been awhile since I've paid YBW a visit so forgive me if these details are not 100% accurate. 
I am not privvy to what has transpired between Rocna Legal and SailNet management (if indeed anything has transpired at all) but I can say that nothing has been said to the Mod Squad by anyone in SailNet management regarding this thread, Rocna anchors or anything at all to do with anchors or the like.

In general ... I would have thought that Manson outsell Rocna in Australia if only because Rocna for some strange reason only set up distribution here a year or so back. The largest Australian marine outlets would be Whitworths and Bias. Last time I checked Whitworths were not selling Rocna but they do sell Manson. Bias sell both. Manson are less expensive than Rocna.


----------



## PCP

tdw said:


> ....
> 
> Paulo,
> The YBW suspension is presumably because they are legal action shy. I don't know the details but YBW were compelled to make a large payment re supposed libel some time back and its thought apparently that fear of a repeat is why that thread was pulled. The discussion however continues in another thread though its been awhile since I've paid YBW a visit so forgive me if these details are not 100% accurate.
> I am not privvy to what has transpired between Rocna Legal and SailNet management (if indeed anything has transpired at all) but I can say that nothing has been said to the Mod Squad by anyone in SailNet management regarding this thread, Rocna anchors or anything at all to do with anchors or the like.
> 
> ....


Well, they have made this statment in YBW regarding the suspension of the Anchor thread:

*I have suspended the thread 'Anchors. I hate to do this but...' following the threat of legal action over allegations of defamatory statements. The thread will remain closed until the matter has been properly investigated.*

Suspended thread - Yachting and Boating World Forums

They talk about a "*threat of legal action*" they don't say from whom but the anchor that was in the "hot" was the Rocna. I hate this kind of statements. I understand that they suspend the thread for fear of legal action but why not saying who is threating them?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## tdw

PCP said:


> Well, they have made this statment in YBW regarding the suspension of the Anchor thread:
> 
> *I have suspended the thread 'Anchors. I hate to do this but...' following the threat of legal action over allegations of defamatory statements. The thread will remain closed until the matter has been properly investigated.*
> 
> Suspended thread - Yachting and Boating World Forums
> 
> They talk about a "*threat of legal action*" they don't say from whom but the anchor that was in the "hot" was the Rocna. I hate this kind of statements. I understand that they suspend the thread for fear of legal action but why not saying who is threating them?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo,
I'm pretty sure the threatened legal action was between Rocna and whats his name the ex Rocna production manager. Rocna were claiming that they had been libelled and/or defamed and from the scuttlebutt it appears YBW did not wish to be caught in the crossfire. I don't think Rocna threatened YBW directly but YBW were concerned that the supposed defamatory statements were on their website and that they could be held accountable. At least that is my reading of it. I am in no way claiming any form of inside knowledge. 
YBW are of course a big target. Outside of the USA they are far and away the most popular Sailing Forum. Worldwide they post similar figures to SailNet, CruisersForum and SailingAnarchy but in the UK they are immensely popular. 
Cheers
Andrew


----------



## PCP

It can be read that way and it makes sense.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JohnRPollard

tdw said:


> ...
> All of which is why I said that I'll be interested to come back to this in six months time. By which time I'll be using a Bruce, but the why of that story is for another day. ...


That, good friends, is a bit of understated foreshadowing. Stay tuned!


----------



## Classic30

JohnRPollard said:


> That, good friends, is a bit of understated foreshadowing. Stay tuned!


Heh. I've not seen Our Wombat so agitated in a long time!! 

He should be hibernating, but the seasons are sooo messed up over here right now...


----------



## tdw




----------



## marinextreme

tdw said:


> Paulo,
> I'm pretty sure the threatened legal action was between Rocna and whats his name the ex Rocna production manager. Rocna were claiming that they had been libelled and/or defamed and from the scuttlebutt it appears YBW did not wish to be caught in the crossfire. I don't think Rocna threatened YBW directly but YBW were concerned that the supposed defamatory statements were on their website and that they could be held accountable. At least that is my reading of it. I am in no way claiming any form of inside knowledge.
> YBW are of course a big target. Outside of the USA they are far and away the most popular Sailing Forum. Worldwide they post similar figures to SailNet, CruisersForum and SailingAnarchy but in the UK they are immensely popular.
> Cheers
> Andrew


Firstly I did not make any defamatory claims or statements about Rocna or anyone associated with them.

Secondly I was extremely dissapointed when the thread was pulled despite them defaming me in the thread and posting unfounded and unproven accusations.

Thirdly, I would welcome the thread being opened up again.

Fourthly, I made no threats or demands on YBW management for the thread to be pulled.

If you read all of my postings on all forums you will see that I have only posted factual information without any BS applied and will continue to do so.

If Rocna don't like the truth being told then that is their problem not mine.


----------



## tdw

Oh ffs, grow up.

Read my post again and you will see that I was merely positing a view as to why the thread might possibly have been pulled. Whether that is so or not I cannot say nor do I care overly much. What is more, whether or not you have refrained from BS or have overly indulged therein I also cannot say. The same can be said abut Rocna and hot kitchens.

All I will say is that the passion that this topic has aroused seems to me to be out of proportion to the issues involved.



marinextreme said:


> Firstly I did not make any defamatory claims or statements about Rocna or anyone associated with them.
> 
> Secondly I was extremely dissapointed when the thread was pulled despite them defaming me in the thread and posting unfounded and unproven accusations.
> 
> Thirdly, I would welcome the thread being opened up again.
> 
> Fourthly, I made no threats or demands on YBW management for the thread to be pulled.
> 
> If you read all of my postings on all forums you will see that I have only posted factual information without any BS applied and will continue to do so.
> 
> If Rocna don't like the truth being told then that is their problem not mine.


----------



## marinextreme

tdw said:


> Oh ffs, grow up.
> 
> Read my post again and you will see that I was merely positing a view as to why the thread might possibly have been pulled. Whether that is so or not I cannot say nor do I care overly much. What is more, whether or not you have refrained from BS or have overly indulged therein I also cannot say. The same can be said abut Rocna and hot kitchens.
> 
> All I will say is that the passion that this topic has aroused seems to me to be out of proportion to the issues involved.


OK I can live with that and it was not a dig at you, so sorry if you have taken it that way.


----------



## tdw

marinextreme said:


> OK I can live with that and it was not a dig at you, so sorry if you have taken it that way.


All is well.


----------



## INMA

I have a Fortress FX7 which works well on soft bottoms and is only difficult to handle after its buried itself in soft mud in a blow (no complaint there it did better than any anchor previously used).

On hard bottoms I use a Manson plow and lots of chain, I can't suggest any anchor works better or worse on things like coral rubble hence a bit of weight and as much chain as possible.

My observation is that using nylon rope with its stretch and ability to absorb shock is just as important as the anchor and chain.

I do believe the Fortress is the best anchor in a majority of situations but most yachts cruising with hard bottoms still need a heavy anchor and the weight of lots of chain.


----------



## CapitainMike

INMA said:


> I have a Fortress FX7 which works well on soft bottoms and is only difficult to handle after its buried itself in soft mud in a blow (no complaint there it did better than any anchor previously used).
> 
> On hard bottoms I use a Manson plow and lots of chain, I can't suggest any anchor works better or worse on things like coral rubble hence a bit of weight and as much chain as possible.
> 
> My observation is that using nylon rope with its stretch and ability to absorb shock is just as important as the anchor and chain.
> 
> I do believe the Fortress is the best anchor in a majority of situations but most yachts cruising with hard bottoms still need a heavy anchor and the weight of lots of chain.


I also have a Manson but unused so far I have not even put a shackle on it yet 
Anchor rodes chain and rope. Do you know what percentage of a rode that should be rope to allow stretching. What do you use??
How much of that rope is usually left on the boat when at anchor?


----------



## INMA

My guess is that the best compromise is two anchors, a Fortress which is brilliant on sand and mud and a heavy anchor like a plow, Bruce or any of the new fancy ones.

I found that for most of the time the light Fortress was easiest to handle and stuck like Shi.t to a blanket on sandy and muddy bottoms. Fortress recommend minimal chain which works as long as the bottom is clean, anchoring with some coral around we used 10 meters of chain to keep the nylon line off the abrasive bottom.

When it gets to anchoring on rubble bottoms weight is the big issue, others will give better advise than me I stayed away from deeper rubbly bottoms because our yacht is too light for a night at an exposed anchorage.

I find that using 10mm nylon anchor line helps the anchor to hold by stretching and avoiding the jerks that can pull the anchor out of the bottom or break deck hardware.

Assuming the female partner is the person likely to be hauling in the anchor, the lighter Fortress saves the crew from being overwhelmed by a heavy tackle and less likely to suffer injury due to the loads of the anchor.

One caution on the Fortress, we laid anchor in mud and woke up the next day with 30 knot winds in the rigging, we were safe to the extent that the Fortress anchor had buried itself and was not coming out quickly. We did the trick of motoring over the anchor and hauling in the chain expecting the anchor to soon break loose, with the chain hauled tight it took over 5 minutes for the anchor to haul out of the mud, it was reassuring to know it was not going anywhere until we pulled it up.

My suggestion is rig a Fortress for sand and mud per Fortress recommendations, they are rated and work. Rig a heavy anchor and lots of chain for reef work and always use nylon line. My lines are 50 meters for each anchor which is good for anchoring in depths of 10 meters, that suits our cruising areas.


----------



## PCP

Talking about good anchors, the Spade is the reference one in Europe, but very expensive. They have presented recently two more anchors, on for day and occasional anchoring and the other a kind of less expensive Spade. It looks like a mix of a Bugel and a Spade They have called it Sea-Blade.

Ancres Seablade


----------



## Maine Sail

PCP said:


> Talking about good anchors, the Spade is the reference one in Europe, but very expensive. They have presented recently two more anchors, on for day and occasional anchoring and the other a kind of less expensive Spade. It looks like a mix of a Bugel and a Spade They have called it Sea-Blade.
> 
> Ancres Seablade


It's funny that when Alain Poiraud, the inventor of the Spade, was alive, he railed with viscous venom against the BSH or better known as the "big stupid hook". Now the current parent company of the Spade has now come up with a Rocna/Manson Supreme look-a-like... Anchors are always amusing.

I own two Spades and they are great anchors, though much less so for the aluminum version, but I'll still pull the Manson Supreme or original Canadian made Rocna out of the quiver well before either of my Spades.


----------



## PCP

Maine Sail said:


> It's funny that when Alain Poiraud, the inventor of the Spade, was alive, he railed with viscous venom against the BSH or better known as the "big stupid hook". Now the current parent company of the Spade has now come up with a Rocna/Manson Supreme look-a-like... Anchors are always amusing.
> 
> I own two Spades and they are great anchors, though much less so for the aluminum version, but I'll still pull the Manson Supreme or original Canadian made Rocna out of the quiver well before either of my Spades.


The new anchor is not designed by Alain Poiroud but by the company that makes the Spade. The new anchor does nor resemble a Rockna or a Mason but a Spade with an arch. The arch was not first used on a Rocna or Mason but on a Bugel.

It seems to me that defining the new anchor as a Spade with a Bugel tipe or arch is more close to reality

On the company that makes the Spade they say that the better anchor they made is the Spade, the arch approach ( and the less expensive anchor) is only a way to get approximated results with a lesser price. If you want the best, they recommend the Spade.

You mean that you have at least 4 anchors on your sail boat (and 4 similar ones) and that use them all You use anchors as ballast?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Maine Sail

PCP said:


> The new anchor is not designed by Alain Poiroud but by the company that makes the Spade. *The new anchor does nor resemble a Rockna or a Mason but a Spade with an arch. The arch was not first used on a Rocna or Mason but on a Bugel.*


The Spade has a three dimensional tip because it is filled with lead. The new one has a one dimensional tip like a Wasi/Bugel, Manson Supreme or Rocna. Both the Ronca and Manson Supreme are direct adaptations of the Wasi but most folks only know about the Manson or Rocna. The shank and upper shape of the fluke are shaped similarly to the Spade but the fluke is one dimensional, like a knife, and will likely slice into a hard bottom better than a Spade will.












PCP said:


> It seems to me that defining the new anchor as a Spade with a Bugel tipe or arch is more close to reality


The cross sections of the tips are entirely different..

Spade:








Rocna:








Manson Supreme:











PCP said:


> On the company that makes the Spade they say that the better anchor they made is the Spade, the arch approach ( and the less expensive anchor) is only a way to get approximated results with a lesser price. If you want the best, they recommend the Spade.


Of course they do that is the anchor that founded the company. How would that go over after all the bashing Alain laid on Rocna to say the new "hoop" anchor is a better performer?? Alain tried numerous anchors after the Spade including the Oceane, Sword and "purportedly" the Raya but none was as good as the original Spade...



PCP said:


> *You mean that you have at least 4 anchors on your sail boat (and 4 similar ones) and that use them all You use anchors as ballast?*


Heck no.. I have a Fortress, Spade steel and a Rocna (Canadian built).

I also own a genuine Bruce, Manson Supreme, Spade aluminum, Supermax, two CQR's & a Danforth. I had a Delta but sold it with the last boat.

The search for the best anchor has been long and arduous and both the Manson Supreme and Rocna have handily out performed both of my Spades though the steel Spade is clearly a top performer just not the one I'd choose as my primary as it sets less well in a hard bottom than either my Manson Supreme or Rocna. Despite the Rocna debacle, and the horrendous company they have become, our Canadian built anchor is an incredible performing hook.

Here's some of the ground tackle in our quiver..









Unlike most boaters I thoroughly put all my anchors through the ringer before placing them on our bow. I own a 5000 pound digital load cell, just like West Marine and other anchor tests have used, and have used my brothers fishing boat to test holding, setting and veers. Doing this allows me to know exactly why an anchor goes on the bow of our boat and why others don't.


----------



## CapitainMike

PCP said:


> Talking about good anchors, the Spade is the reference one in Europe, but very expensive. They have presented recently two more anchors, on for day and occasional anchoring and the other a kind of less expensive Spade. It looks like a mix of a Bugel and a Spade They have called it Sea-Blade.
> 
> Ancres Seablade


Hmm!!! Spade I looked at many the only good thing I found was their anchor template.

Its excellent. The only downside I found beside the cost was the Spade Selector Wizard it told me to select an anchor for a boat a ton heavier than my boat.
If it is if it does not fit in with my length and displacement the displacement is a lot less than they quote for my boat length you have to go one anchor bigger. Psychologicaly your being pushed to one anchor size higher.

Spade I looked at many the only good thing I found was their anchor template. Its excellent.

Manson Even though their Anchor Template does not exist as such though you can get fairly accurate measurements.

But then I bought a Manson 

Their direct backup is incredible. You can talk or mail with them from the director down. Nothing is to small or to awkward for them.










As requested to include by SailNet..... I have and never had any affiliation whatsoever of any type with any anchor company in any pat of the production merchandising or sales.


----------



## junkrig

Minnewaska said:


> I would like to see a show of hands.
> 
> If you owned any of the aforementioned anchor companies, would you advertise it as... "a pretty good anchor that is better in some conditions more than others....... Buy our anchor, because we're really honest about it."
> 
> I'm not condoning outright fraud, but puffery is a fairly standard, even protected under the law.


Back when I was in business I used to word pitches that way. 'Course, I'm not in business any more...


----------



## ArgleBargle

*anchor comparison link*

Hi. I posted these scans of the PBO anchor test article on a separate thread but thought i'd repost the first and last pages here. apologies for any redundancy. again, usual caveats like unrealistic conditions/scope, bottom characteristics, slightly different weights, not all anchors compared.

https://picasaweb.google.com/111706...key=Gv1sRgCK__oo2m2I2R1wE#5645967141600472018

https://picasaweb.google.com/111706...key=Gv1sRgCK__oo2m2I2R1wE#5645967129456125170

https://picasaweb.google.com/111706...key=Gv1sRgCK__oo2m2I2R1wE#5645967102229691090


----------



## PCP

Maine Sail said:


> The Spade has a three dimensional tip because it is filled with lead. The new one has a one dimensional tip like a Wasi/Bugel, Manson Supreme or Rocna. Both the Ronca and Manson Supreme are direct adaptations of the Wasi but most folks only know about the Manson or Rocna. The shank and upper shape of the fluke are shaped similarly to the Spade but the fluke is one dimensional, like a knife, and will likely slice into a hard bottom better than a Spade will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cross sections of the tips are entirely different..
> 
> Spade:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rocna:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manson Supreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they do that is the anchor that founded the company. How would that go over after all the bashing Alain laid on Rocna to say the new "hoop" anchor is a better performer?? Alain tried numerous anchors after the Spade including the Oceane, Sword and "purportedly" the Raya but none was as good as the original Spade...
> 
> Heck no.. I have a Fortress, Spade steel and a Rocna (Canadian built).
> 
> I also own a genuine Bruce, Manson Supreme, Spade aluminum, Supermax, two CQR's & a Danforth. I had a Delta but sold it with the last boat.
> 
> The search for the best anchor has been long and arduous and both the Manson Supreme and Rocna have handily out performed both of my Spades though the steel Spade is clearly a top performer just not the one I'd choose as my primary as it sets less well in a hard bottom than either my Manson Supreme or Rocna. Despite the Rocna debacle, and the horrendous company they have become, our Canadian built anchor is an incredible performing hook.
> 
> Here's some of the ground tackle in our quiver..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike most boaters I thoroughly put all my anchors through the ringer before placing them on our bow. I own a 5000 pound digital load cell, just like West Marine and other anchor tests have used, and have used my brothers fishing boat to test holding, setting and veers. Doing this allows me to know exactly why an anchor goes on the bow of our boat and why others don't.


Great post

When I had said that the new anchor was like the Spade I was referring the shank and the form but you are right in what refers the one dimensional fluke.

Maybe you are right, maybe the new anchor from Spade will outperform the Spade even being less expensive. Finally something new to watch on the next test anchors 

Your experience with several types of anchor seems great and very informative. Regarding the Spade it makes sense the anchor to be a bit less easy to set on hard ground due to the tridimensional fluke but on the tests i have read and they were several the Spade outperformed the Mason in Sand and had at least the same holding power than the Rocna, if not more.

By the way do you have any input on the other anchor that is now a bestseller in Europe, the Kobra II?

Plastimo Kobra Anchor Stainless Steel | GulfStreamShop.com

Voiles et Voiliers : Equipement - Kobra 2

Curiously I had one for 7 years without never testing it. It was my second anchor on my boat, The first one was one of the first Spade and it never failed me and I anchor a lot.

This season I charted a boat with one and I was impressed. In about the 20 or 25 times that I have anchored it set always on the first time. All right,I don't drop my hook without looking and the med waters are mostly clear but that is an impressive performance.

That anchor is considered in Europe as having the best Quality/price ratio.

I will need to buy a new anchor soon but I am limited to anchors without an arch (many new boats with a bowsprit cannot have them) so this one at that price is a strong candidate.

Maybe this time I will have a bigger Kobra as main anchor and a smaller one has second anchor

Regards

Paulo


----------



## CapitainMike

Wasi Bugle originally made in Germany. Wasi stopped making them there many many copies about but Lewmar is making and selling them under licence.


----------



## PCP

I have read one more test anchor, a recent one, this time on the British Magazine PBO (Pratical Boat Owner). The anchors were the usual including Rocna, Manson, Spade, CQR, Bruce and Delta but this test was a bit different, more complicated and they did not limit themselves to pull the anchors till they drag (DHF). They not only normalized the results but also found the Ultimate Holding Capacity (UHC) that is smaller than the Dynamic Holding Force, but more reliable and useful.

The overall conclusion was the usual, the Rocna, Mason and Spade are great anchors. If we want to be picky the Spade was the best performer.

They used a complicated system to determinate the UHC that is the minimum force needed to move the anchor and that is different from dragging. Good anchors move very slowly on the bottom resisting pressure and we don't call normally that dragging.

That means that they had pulled the anchor till it moves then they will stopped pulling without diminishing the pressure till it stops moving slowly on the bottom and stays stationary. They have made this sequence 6 or seven times. The Medium value is the normalized one. The anchors were tested 1m apart and were tested several times and on two different grounds: Hard Sand/Mud and Medium hard sand.

Then they have attributed an efficiency index to the tested anchors. For that they divided the UHC by the weight of each anchor. The anchors were tested in about two different approximated sizes 6Kg and 15kg but as all the anchors had not exactly the same weight they introduced this efficiency concept to give more precision to the test.

Complicated? Is what happens when you put a University physics professor doing the job

One of the conclusions that is nice to know is that the efficiency of the bigger anchors is about 30% better than on the small ones. The efficiency numbers are these (the smaller number for the less efficient smaller anchor, the bigger one for the heavier and more efficient one):

*Efficiency: *

Spade 24; 32

Rocna 21; 30

Manson 12; 21

Delta 8; 11

Bruce 5; 6

CQR 7; 8

*Regarding setting the anchor they say :*

Excellent for Spade, Rocna and Mason.

CQR - Dragged on surface;

Delta - moderate/good;

Bruce - Dragged on surface.

*Conclusions:

Spade, Rocna and Mason: Excellent performance

Delta: Good performance

CQR and Bruce: Poor performance.*

I will add something that is very important:

The similar sized Spade, Rocna and Mason anchors have, as the numbers show, a close performance however Spade, for the same size of boat recommends heavier anchors than Rocna and specially more heavier than Mason that seems a lot more optimistic about the holding power a boat needs.

Some prefer to buy Mason because they just recommends less heavier and therefore less expensive anchors for a given sized boat, comparing with Spade and Rocna. That only means that those sailors are trusting on the more optimistic seller since the holding power is very similar on similar weighted anchors made by these manufacturers.

Even if the holding power of Mason is very good it is inferior (not only on this test but on more tests that I had saw) than the one from Spade or Rocna and I find funny that it is the one with less holding power that recommends the lighter anchors for the same boat.

Do you think it does not make sense? Yes it makes sense on a commercial point of view because there would be some sailors that would believe that because they are more optimistic their anchors have more holding power than the ones from their close competitors.

Regarding optimism and sailors there is an old saying: The bottom of the ocean is full of optimistic sailors

Regards

Paulo


----------



## LinekinBayCD

pdqaltair said:


> All anchors are evolutions. The Rocna is a step forward, perhaps the best overall design at this time, but...
> 
> * The angles are not unique. If you look at just on half of a Northill anchor, for example, it looks pretty similar. I had a genuine Norhill on my last boat and it's setting behavior was very much like the Rocna (other problems).
> * The shank obviously came from Delta and Bruce, as well as some others.
> * The roll bar, perhaps, came from Bugel. A very similar anchor that I believe is a bit older.
> * The attitude, perhaps from Fortress laugher ).
> * The Manson tests better than Rocna on occasion. Though It seems probable there was some copying, it is also possible there are some improvements. I do wish they would lose the second slot; pointless and actually costing them some sales, I think.
> 
> Good anchors. I just they would lighten up and realize that happy customers (both Fortress and Rocna) speak loudest.


Just to be clear below is my full post, part of which was quited above. The main factor in deciding to go with the Rocna was all the test results that I could get my hands on.

*"For what it is worth the Sail magazine was what originally started my interest in the Rocna. I still have the magazine laying around somewhere and when I get a chance I'll get it out and re-read it. However, my clear recollection is that the Rocna was the best performing anchor in the test and by more than just a marginal amount. That is why I began to consider buying the Rocna instead of the Manson Supreme in addition to my impression, right or wrong that all Manson's were knock offs.

Some time later I saw the synopsis of the Sail test on the Rocna website. I didn't compare what was on the site vs the Sail article line by line as it seemed to be consistent with what I remembered from the Sail article." *


----------



## CapitainMike

PCP said:


> I have read one more test anchor, a recent one, this time on the British Magazine PBO (Pratical Boat Owner). The anchors were the usual including Rocna, Manson, Spade, CQR, Bruce and Delta but this test was a bit different, more complicated and they did not limit themselves to pull the anchors till they drag (DHF). They not only normalized the results but also found the Ultimate Holding Capacity (UHC) that is smaller than the Dynamic Holding Force, but more reliable and useful.
> 
> The overall conclusion was the usual, the Rocna, Mason and Spade are great anchors. If we want to be picky the Spade was the best performer.
> 
> They used a complicated system to determinate the UHC that is the minimum force needed to move the anchor and that is different from dragging. Good anchors move very slowly on the bottom resisting pressure and we don't call normally that dragging.
> 
> That means that they had pulled the anchor till it moves then they will stopped pulling without diminishing the pressure till it stops moving slowly on the bottom and stays stationary. They have made this sequence 6 or seven times. The Medium value is the normalized one. The anchors were tested 1m apart and were tested several times and on two different grounds: Hard Sand/Mud and Medium hard sand.
> 
> Then they have attributed an efficiency index to the tested anchors. For that they divided the UHC by the weight of each anchor. The anchors were tested in about two different approximated sizes 6Kg and 15kg but as all the anchors had not exactly the same weight they introduced this efficiency concept to give more precision to the test.
> 
> Complicated? Is what happens when you put a University physics professor doing the job
> 
> One of the conclusions that is nice to know is that the efficiency of the bigger anchors is about 30% better than on the small ones. The efficiency numbers are these (the smaller number for the less efficient smaller anchor, the bigger one for the heavier and more efficient one):
> 
> *Efficiency: *
> 
> Spade 24; 32
> 
> Rocna 21; 30
> 
> Manson 12; 21
> 
> Delta 8; 11
> 
> Bruce 5; 6
> 
> CQR 7; 8
> 
> *Regarding setting the anchor they say :*
> 
> Excellent for Spade, Rocna and Mason.
> 
> CQR - Dragged on surface;
> 
> Delta - moderate/good;
> 
> Bruce - Dragged on surface.
> 
> *Conclusions:
> 
> Spade, Rocna and Mason: Excellent performance
> 
> Delta: Good performance
> 
> CQR and Bruce: Poor performance.*
> 
> I will add something that is very important:
> 
> The similar sized Spade, Rocna and Mason anchors have, as the numbers show, a close performance however Spade, for the same size of boat recommends heavier anchors than Rocna and specially more heavier than Mason that seems a lot more optimistic about the holding power a boat needs.
> 
> Some prefer to buy Mason because they just recommends less heavier and therefore less expensive anchors for a given sized boat, comparing with Spade and Rocna. That only means that those sailors are trusting on the more optimistic seller since the holding power is very similar on similar weighted anchors made by these manufacturers.
> 
> Even if the holding power of Mason is very good it is inferior (not only on this test but on more tests that I had saw) than the one from Spade or Rocna and I find funny that it is the one with less holding power that recommends the lighter anchors for the same boat.
> 
> Do you think it does not make sense? Yes it makes sense on a commercial point of view because there would be some sailors that would believe that because they are more optimistic their anchors have more holding power than the ones from their close competitors.
> 
> Regarding optimism and sailors there is an old saying: The bottom of the ocean is full of optimistic sailors
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Which Rocna New Zealand, Canada or China.

Manson Anchors: Supreme Anchor high standards


----------



## PCP

CapitainMike said:


> Which Rocna New Zealand, Canada or China.
> 
> ...


I am not saying that Rocna has or had problems with the quality of its steel but that would be irrelevant in this test since the forces that were utilized to drag the anchors did not damage any of them.

The same anchor, with the same design, with the same weight made with premium grade steel or a lower but still high grade steel would have performed the same way on this test.

Only a specific destructive test could have shown the differences in resistance namely in what regards bending and breaking.

Answering directly to your question, I don't know, but the test was made some months ago so the chances are that the Rocna are the ones you can find now in the market.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## tdw

Wow. I am surprised at the low rating achieved by the Bruce. Paulo, you know the Malo uses a Bruce as primary and thus far in mud (medium soft) and sand (medium soft) it has been every bit as good as our old Rocna on the Van De Stadt.


----------



## PCP

tdw said:


> Wow. I am surprised at the low rating achieved by the Bruce. Paulo, you know the Malo uses a Bruce as primary and thus far in mud (medium soft) and sand (medium soft) it has been every bit as good as our old Rocna on the Van De Stadt.


Hi Andrews,

Not only on this test but on all tests I have saw (and were many).

A Bruce is an anchor and works as one but its performance is not much better than a CQR. Of course a Bruce will hold your boat in normal conditions but the holding power is just about 1/3 of the more modern anchors (Spade, Rocna, Manson, Kobra).

On normal conditions that does not make any difference but I remember a night in Formentera with 40k winds. I moved about 2m (during all night) and had to be awake because in a big and crowded anchorage many other boats were dragging fast and some towards me.

At the time I found odd and was a bit worried because I noticed that I was moving very very slowly. Now with all this testing I know that is the way a good anchor works on the limit.

But pay attention because this is the way modern anchors work, many of the old ones hold till start moving than break and don't set again. That' s what I was seeing all round me on that night.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

Well, I've tried very hard to be objective about the whole Rocna thing...defending them when there was little to no real factual evidence at hand. But this email that was posted over at CF by Evans (who obtained it by perfectly legit means) seems to be pretty damning evidence for a lot of the issues we've discussed.

http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/rocnatext.pdf

Wow.


----------



## PCP

From: Craig Smith

"If you know a test is to be run it is best to provide the anchor (sponsor). This way you can provide a *tuned anchor* you know is correct in every aspect, especially the correct tip shape and sharpness which is critical for immediate good test results. *A number of tuned 10s and 15s, as well as Stowables, should be kept in stock for these occasions*.....

As to the German "test", the results are bizarre and their analysis not consistent with their own graph, but I can't provide any answers until I see the test anchor. However, *we have told you repeatedly that the Chinese anchors that you are shipping are NOT to spec, and we have yet to see one that is acceptable. I assume the anchor that the Germans tested suffers from the same problems. It should not have been provided; rather, send them a tuned sample ex CNC."*

http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/rocnatext.pdf


----------



## Maine Sail

PCP said:


> From: Craig Smith
> 
> "If you know a test is to be run it is best to provide the anchor (sponsor). This way you can provide a *tuned anchor* you know is correct in every aspect, especially the correct tip shape and sharpness which is critical for immediate good test results. *A number of tuned 10s and 15s, as well as Stowables, should be kept in stock for these occasions*.....
> 
> As to the German "test", the results are bizarre and their analysis not consistent with their own graph, but I can't provide any answers until I see the test anchor. However, *we have told you repeatedly that the Chinese anchors that you are shipping are NOT to spec, and we have yet to see one that is acceptable. I assume the anchor that the Germans tested suffers from the same problems. It should not have been provided; rather, send them a tuned sample ex CNC."*
> 
> http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/rocnatext.pdf


It should be noted that this was an email from Peter Smith, not Craig, and from September 2009 WELL before the claimed "small number of anchors in 2010" that were below spec....

The plot and lies thicken..


----------



## PCP

Sorry, you are right about the email being from Peter Smith. I was mistake by this:

From: Craig Smith
Sent: Sunday, 20 September 2009 9:00 PM
To: Tanya Le Fleming Burrow; Steve Bambury
Cc: Grant King; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Problems with Rocna?

Some more fire here:

"Unfortunately it's not the first poor showing for Rocna in recent times and* you're probably familiar with the results of the tests performed in Australia comparing the Rocna with the new Excel from Sarca under the guidance of the NSW Maritime Safety association*?

*They made a straight shoot out between the two and the result was they ate us for breakfast *and this has given the Aussie market a shake up to our detriment as the endorsement of Maritime Safety gives it a high credibility! *Are we to assume that this testing is flawed also? Can we have some comments from Peter please?*"

This seems to be from a Rocna dealer or a regional Rocna responsible.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

Again, trying to be objective...we probably need to know more about the license/manufacture relationship between the Smiths and HoldFast before anyone says that Peter is "lying" to the public - at least regarding the out-of-spec anchors and the spec data on the website at the time.

The quote above regarding the weaker anchors is him telling HF that the anchors being manufactured/shipped at that time "are NOT to spec". That doesn't necessarily imply any complicity on the part of the Smiths. In fact it might be the opposite...him telling them to NOT manufacture/ship anymore anchors that are not to spec (which we now know that they did). Who knows? It all depends on his contractual power in that situation under the licensing agreement.

On the other hand, it DOES show that, as Maine points out, that the Smiths knew about this problem well before the timeline laid out in the most recent press release and WM notice. So, it's still bad.

If they want to save this company, the had sure better come clean on all of it.


----------



## killarney_sailor

A tuned anchor? WTF? A reliable test should start with a randomly chosen anchor from a regular chandelry.


----------



## marinextreme

*tuned*



killarney_sailor said:


> A tuned anchor? WTF? A reliable test should start with a randomly chosen anchor from a regular chandelry.


Ah...but a tuned one sings a far better song.ukeuke


----------



## smackdaddy

marinextreme said:


> Ah...but a tuned one sings a far better song.ukeuke


Is this standard practice in the industry? In other words, do other manufacturers do the same for these tests?

As maine said above, it seems to me that the testing authority is the one that needs to insist on the terms. Otherwise, what's wrong with doing what you can to make sure the results are as good as they can be? If it's not against the rules, it's not against the rules.


----------



## smackdaddy

Holy crap! This whole Rocna thing just gets nastier and nastier. Now it looks like bribes were flying to try to get Rina certification:

Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific - Page 78 - Yachting and Boating World Forums

It seems there was no one clean in this whole debacle.


----------



## Minnewaska

I can't follow how this implicates CMP.


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> I can't follow how this implicates CMP.


It doesn't. But if Grant's comment about bribing RINA officials is accurate (e.g. - they accepted the money under the pretenses of providing certification), it certainly seems to implicate RINA.


----------



## Minnewaska

smackdaddy said:


> It doesn't. But if Grant's comment about bribing RINA officials is accurate (e.g. - they accepted the money under the pretenses of providing certification), it certainly seems to implicate RINA.


Gotcha. When you said "no one" was clean, it seemed to implicate CMP too. Based on what I read in your link, it wasn't full clear that RINA actually accepted a bribe either. I think we should be careful fanning flames. However, the Rocna/China problem is certainly on fire.


----------



## smackdaddy

Minnewaska said:


> Gotcha. When you said "no one" was clean, it seemed to implicate CMP too. Based on what I read in your link, it wasn't full clear that RINA actually accepted a bribe either. I think we should be careful fanning flames. However, the Rocna/China problem is certainly on fire.


Here's the statement:



> He claimed in his evidence that this money was for me to make cash payments to Rina for expenses incurred in obtaining certification.
> 
> The facts , backed up by emails and other written informations, are that he instructed me to bribe certain officals at Rina and at another manufacturing facility with this cash amount in order to gain certification. Upon my return to NZ he praised me for a job well done and announced to the world that certification had been obtained.


Agreed that nothing is definitive - and it needs clarification (which I've asked Grant for). But if you take what he's written as it reads, along with the court finding, that $5K that was meant as bribe money for RINA officials and another manufacturing facility went somewhere - and that somewhere pleased his boss.

Hopefully Grant will clear this up.


----------



## CapitainMike

smackdaddy said:


> Is this standard practice in the industry? In other words, do other manufacturers do the same for these tests?
> 
> As maine said above, it seems to me that the testing authority is the one that needs to insist on the terms. Otherwise, what's wrong with doing what you can to make sure the results are as good as they can be? If it's not against the rules, it's not against the rules.


This by manufacturers is a lie etc by omission.

On buying an anchor you cannot specify "Tuned" or "Un-tuned" Therefore I consider that all test carried out with a tuned I.E. above standard item to be an act of Duplicity. and appropriate legal action should be taken

Definition of DUPLICITY
1 : contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action

2 : the quality or state of being double or twofold

3 : the technically incorrect use of two or more distinct items (as claims, charges, or defenses) in a single legal action

Related to DUPLICITY formal : dishonest behavior that is meant to trick someone

Synonyms: artifice, *cheating*, cozenage, craft, craftiness, crookedness, crookery, cunning, cunningness, deceitfulness, *deception*, deceptiveness, *dishonesty*, dissembling, dissimulation, double-dealing, dupery, deceit, fakery, foxiness, *fraud*, guile, guilefulness, wiliness

The Jaguar cars models XK 120. 140. and 150. were powered by standard engines built with standard parts but the parts had been "tuned" to each other. Advertising informed of this and the opportunity to purchase a "better performance model" was offered to all.

To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it's a gross violation of another person's right of self-determination.

The Biggest Lie About Lies -- A Lie of Omission Is Not a Lie!
A lie of omission is the most insidious, most pervasive, and most common lie on the entire planet. Commonly, those who use this type of lie, have conned themselves into believing that to intentionally remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up is not a lie at all. In spite of overwhelming evidence that their silence deceives, misleads, and often causes untold grief and misery, they refuse to speak the truth.

The Inevitable Consequences: There is also the common misconception that intentional deception by silence has no consequences. Lies of commission (telling a lie) and lies of omission (withholding the truth) are both acts of intention deception. Both reap the same consequences.

intentional deception to obtain a pecuniary advantage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_(criminal_law)


----------



## hmurmur

*Anchor alarm*

We are newbies to anchoring, tho we have been daysailing and overnighting (on moorings/docks) for several years. 
My Chartplotter has an anchor alarm, but it drains the batteries quickly. does anyone have a suggestion for an inexpensive backup, like a handheld gps with anchor alarm?
Thoughts?


----------



## Minnewaska

*Re: Anchor alarm*



hmurmur said:


> We are newbies to anchoring, tho we have been daysailing and overnighting (on moorings/docks) for several years.
> My Chartplotter has an anchor alarm, but it drains the batteries quickly. does anyone have a suggestion for an inexpensive backup, like a handheld gps with anchor alarm?
> Thoughts?


Inexpensive is relative. I use Anchor Watch ($2) on my IPad. It will email me when I'm ashore! Which I can get on a smart phone, with an alarm if the anchor drags. Run in the background and shut monitor off and the battery will last all day.


----------

