# Disturbing report on MANTUS and other chain hooks



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

The current issue of Practical Sailor (March 2016) has a very disturbing test of chain hooks, used for attaching a snubber. They tested a whole bunch of chain hooks, both brand name and no-name. Most are marketed for industrial purposes but they also included the MANTUS hook. I mention the latter because it is specifically marketed for sailors and I have bought one and really liked its design and execution (and I have written how much I like it here on SN).

Two results disturbed me. First, during load testing to failure they discovered that the MANTUS hook deformed at a surprisingly low load. They show a picture of one which looks more like a pretzel after two dogs fought over it, after applying 3,606 pounds of load. This is quite a bit of force but only a bit more than half of the breaking strength of the chain they used (5/16"). The other hook they show (from Peerless) did not deform at all. 

Even more disturbing was that both hooks weakened the chain considerably. The Peerless hook by 22%, the MANTUS hook by a whopping 42%! The reason is that the sharp corners at the inside of the MANTUS hook essentially cut through the chain.

So, by attaching a snubber to my chain with a MANTUS hook I decrease the chain's strength by nearly half!! 

I find this very disturbing. I really like how securely the MANTUS hook grabs the chain but I had not considered that it SEVERELY weakens the chain. I am now looking at replacing it with a standard (cradle-type) chain hook. Such hooks are typically not galvanized and they do not grip the chain as securely as the MANTUS hook but both deficiencies can be corrected. There is nothing I can do about a hook that cuts the chain.

I know that MANTUS is a sponsor here and I would like to hear their side of the story.


----------



## Shockwave (Feb 4, 2014)

Rolling half hitches work fine to attach the snubber to the chain.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

For goodness sakes. I just reluctantly bought a stainless steak 1/2" Mantus chain hook too. The bi-directional movement to attach the hook, seemed clever. I bought the galvanized version last year and the manufacturing was so poor, with grind marks and bad galvanization, I returned it. Wanting an easy method of taking load off the windlass, for anchor setting, I broke down and dropped the $100+ on stainless. The manufacturing looked better and I'm just splicing a bridle for it now. 

Honestly, I've always found Mantus to be suspect, so I'm kicking myself. Making a bolt together stainless steel anchor has always seemed to be a crevice corrosion issue and I've not received a good reply on how they tested that. I also question the movement of a bolt together surfaces on wearing off galvanization too. 

If we don't get some clarification here that makes sense, my hook is going back. Again.

I'm curious what PS said was the best hook or method? Why do I think I'll be going back to the rolling hitch?


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Shockwave said:


> Rolling half hitches work fine to attach the snubber to the chain.


Wiser words were never spoken


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> For goodness sakes. I just reluctantly bought a stainless steak 1/2" Mantus chain hook too. The bi-directional movement to attach the hook, seemed clever. I bought the galvanized version last year and the manufacturing was so poor, with grind marks and bad galvanization, I returned it. Wanting an easy method of taking load off the windlass, for anchor setting, I broke down and dropped the $100+ on stainless. The manufacturing looked better and I'm just splicing a bridle for it now.
> 
> Honestly, I've always found Mantus to be suspect, so I'm kicking myself. Making a bolt together stainless steel anchor has always seemed to be a crevice corrosion issue and I've not received a good reply on how they tested that. I also question the movement of a bolt together surfaces on wearing off galvanization too.
> 
> ...


I am sorry if I misled you by praising the manufacturing of the stainless hook. I remember that I did that here. And I still think it looks like a nice piece of hardware. Whether it is actually a good chain hook may be a different question.

PS said that there are a bunch of good quality, load tested hooks for the industrial lifting market which all work well. Some do not reduce the chain strength at all, some by about 20%.

If there is one good thing about all this, it is that these hooks cost typically a lot less than the MANTUS, certainly the stainless version that you and I bought. You can find load-tested hooks (certified for overhead lifting use) from reputable companies for less than $15.-. PS actually used one that cost $5.-


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> ....PS said that there are a bunch of good quality, load tested hooks for the industrial lifting market which all work well. Some do not reduce the chain strength at all, some by about 20%.


Which ones?


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

How are you securing the hook to the boat? The stated tensile strength of 3/8" unused Nylon Rope is 3340lbs... see Rope Characteristics

I believe that the line would snap before hook would bend, or cut the chain.

Personally, I look at this as a further argument for combination rope and chain rode.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Shockwave said:


> Rolling half hitches work fine to attach the snubber to the chain.


In fact, I have tested that for Practical Sailor (published in a few months?) and learned that the rolling hitch will slip on chain when the load really comes on, typically FAR below 20% line strength.

So no. A number experienced high-latitude adventure cruisers interviewed for the project reported rolling hitches slipping and NONE of them still use a rolling hitch. We will discuss other knots that do work.

----

I think it is also worth mentioning that if you have a proper snubber (about 1 boat length) the hook or knot will never operate above 15% breaking strength, even in a storm. I'm not saying that we want to weaken things, but this does explain why we see very few (none that I have ever heard of) failures when long snubbers are used. I use a Mantus hook, and given how soft my snubber is, this does not concern me. I simply cannot reach a load over 1200 pounds. I'm also not much interested in hooks that can come off (as a cat a sailor I anchor is some really shallow water, and most can come off in the mud no mater how careful you are with a lazy loop). I've had them all come off. That said, I also use knots (prussic or camel) when the mood strikes.

The load rating of the hook does not need to exceed the rating of the snubber line, which is generally less than the chain. what we have not tested (and I believe it may be coming) is whether a chain hook that has been loaded to 15% chain BS has any effect on actual chain strength, or more importantly, fatigue life. Don't know.

I think it is also obvious that a rope tied to a chain is limited by knot strength, and few knots are better than 60%.

Whether a hook or knot is more convenient and practical depends on the boat. Tying a knot inside rollers and easing it out is cake (do make sure to keep the snubber from under the chain, in and out). But on some boats the snubber is attached forward of the roller, and a hook is much easier. Just depends, IMO. I don't think there is one answer, as much as we would like that.

But I do wonder if Mantus did actual proof testing, or more likely used a calculated number that did not include the side load. Good QC means breaking some stuff.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> Which ones?


Search for 'cradle hooks.' They support the chain link on a large surface.


----------



## uncle stinky bob (Feb 28, 2016)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I am sorry if I misled you by praising the manufacturing of the stainless hook. I remember that I did that here. And I still think it looks like a nice piece of hardware. Whether it is actually a good chain hook may be a different question.
> 
> PS said that there are a bunch of good quality, load tested hooks for the industrial lifting market which all work well. Some do not reduce the chain strength at all, some by about 20%.
> 
> If there is one good thing about all this, it is that these hooks cost typically a lot less than the MANTUS, certainly the stainless version that you and I bought. You can find load-tested hooks (certified for overhead lifting use) from reputable companies for less than $15.-. PS actually used one that cost $5.-


Is it the one with the cross shaped chain hook opening or the one with the black plastic looking keeper? Don't think I'll be buying Mantus hooks just curious to know if it was a model specific problem. Thanks.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

uncle stinky bob said:


> Is it the one with the cross shaped chain hook opening or the one with the black plastic looking keeper? Don't think I'll be buying Mantus hooks just curious to know if it was a model specific problem. Thanks.


Ehm, the two are one and the same... There is only one MANTUS chain hook, as far as I know, except for size and material (galvanized or stainless). They black plastic 'keeper' is something they added later but it goes on the same hook.

To their credit, when I bought my hook the plastic thing was not included. When it came out I asked about it and they sent me one for retrofitting, no charge. They even paid the postage. Great customer service!


----------



## wrwakefield (Nov 18, 2015)

I was more enlightened than disturbed by the report... ;-)

The information about chain hooks decreasing chain strength is not new. The portion of the report I found especially informative were the quantified results with various manufacturer's hook designs, and the causal factors causing chain wear and weakening.

25+ years ago I always used un-galvanized devil's claws which I had to keep coated with spray zinc in a can. They worked great, didn't weaken or wear the chain, but were a hassle in inclement conditions- and a real gel coat chipper and head knocker if one got out of control...

I switched to one long anchor bridle [currently 80 ft x 5/8 in 3-strand nylon] cow-hitched in it's middle to the anchor chain on deck before it goes over the bow roller. Very quick and easy. [I've timed it under moderate conditions, and no more than 2 minutes to set up the entire bridle for the final setting the anchor... I'm lazy; we always anchor this way... I don't want to get up in the middle of the night for avoidable reasons...]

If I need to adjust chain length after the bridle is in place, I can bring in enough chain to open the cow-hitch on deck, take-in/let out more chain [the chain passing through the wide-open cow-hitch] and re-cinch the hitch and let out more chain to put it in tension... Maybe 2 minutes if I'm not fighting conditions...

This holds extremely well in all conditions I have encountered so far on 3 boats over 25 years... [worse case up here is 90 knot gusts from sudden williwaws.]

If I were setting multiple bridles anticipating riding out a storm, I would give the cow-hitch another wrap or two and make it a Prusik hitch just to make sure it didn't slip on the chain. [Although I have never had a cow-hitch slip yet, but have read that others have reported slippage...] Both hitches are easy to untie after load from my experience, and a Prusik still holds if one side of the bridle comes loose or breaks.

No chain weakening, no wear on the chain galvanizing, holds no matter what, no safety hazard of a weight on the end of a line, and quick and easy.

If I went back to hardware, on my current boat I would have to lean over and reach under the bow sprit to get to the chain after the bow roller for securing the hook... No thanks...

I suspect I'm not the only one using this approach, and that is all it is; just another way of achieving the desired results.

Cheers!

Bill


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

wrwakefield said:


> I was more enlightened than disturbed by the report... ;-)
> 
> The information about chain hooks decreasing chain strength is not new. The portion of the report I found especially informative were the quantified results with various manufacturer's hook designs, and the causal factors causing chain wear and weakening.
> 
> ...


Several things I don't understand:

1. Is this a bridle? Is that the reason the cow hitch is in the center?
2. How do you quickly do a cow hitch in the middle? Even more awkward with a pruisik (bringing 2 40' legs through twice). BTW, as you know, a cow hitch will slip if one side is cut, a prusik will not.
3. If it is a bridle, then it would need to be fed backwards through the rollers from the chocks, right?

Like I said, there is something I feel I'm not getting....

If I could easily feed through the rollers (can't because I have a wide bridle) I would never consider a hook. On the other hand, with a cat feeding the bridle backwards takes time, all the while the chain is banging on the windlass. However, I reach over a broad bow rail and get a hook on before the line comes tight. So there is another side.


----------



## uncle stinky bob (Feb 28, 2016)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Ehm, the two are one and the same... There is only one MANTUS chain hook, as far as I know, except for size and material (galvanized or stainless). They black plastic 'keeper' is something they added later but it goes on the same hook.
> 
> To their credit, when I bought my hook the plastic thing was not included. When it came out I asked about it and they sent me one for retrofitting, no charge. They even paid the postage. Great customer service!


These are the two different Mantus chain hooks I was refer to. But I'm thinking these are the same hook? just a plastic keepers added? thanks


----------



## wrwakefield (Nov 18, 2015)

pdqaltair said:


> Several things I don't understand:
> Hi PDQ,
> 
> Good questions helping point out where I need to elaborate more...
> ...


Thanks for your questions and feedback, and for keeping me on my toes... It is always enlightening to review and examine one's methods, and to learn new ones.

I hope this helps make better sense of the approach I described.

Cheers!

Bill


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> ....I think it is also worth mentioning that if you have a proper snubber (about 1 boat length) the hook or knot will never operate above 15% breaking strength, even in a storm......


Could you help me understand this point? I'm not following what snubber length has to do with it.

Further, here's my set up. We have 1/2" G4 chain, with a working load of 9,200lbs and a breaking strength of 27,600lbs. I am presently fashioning a dual bridle (two lines, each with a spliced thimble for the hook's shackle to pass through, tied off to each side of the bow). I'm using 5/8" 3-strand, which has a reported tensile strength of 11,650lbs.

Not sure if I sized the snubber properly, I used to just tie a rolling hitch with a single 3/4" 3-strand and run it down the bow roller. The two lines of 5/8" must actually be stronger now.

Given the reported degradation of the chain by the Mantus hook, I'm not sure my snubber would break first.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

uncle stinky bob said:


> These are the two different Mantus chain hooks I was refer to. But I'm thinking these are the same hook? just a plastic keepers added? thanks


Yup they are the same. The plastic thingy just snaps on it.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> Could you help me understand this point? I'm not following what snubber length has to do with it.
> 
> Further, here's my set up. We have 1/2" G4 chain, with a working load of 9,200lbs and a breaking strength of 27,600lbs. I am presently fashioning a dual bridle (two lines, each with a spliced thimble for the hook's shackle to pass through, tied off to each side of the bow). I'm using 5/8" 3-strand, which has a reported tensile strength of 11,650lbs.
> 
> ...


I researched this for a Practical Sailor article, taking strain readings with 6 different snubbers (none, short and stout, to long and thinner) in a range of wind speeds. With a longer snubber, the rope stretches during wave strikes , reducing the peak load about 3-5 times vs. chain alone. The longer the snubber, the less the wave impact. Wind force alone is generally a very small part of the total load. The snubbers that lasted best and reduced the load on the anchor system the most, withing practicality, were about 1-1.5 boat lengths and were not quite as strong as the chain, but close. The very best were made of climbing rope, though these are limited to boats about 30,000 pounds single (more as bridle). The point was to design a system where the load could never pass the WL of the chain, but generally more like 50% WL. In my case, it works out to 15% BS at 60 knots. The best way to break a snubber, is to have a short one, reaching just beyond the roller.

The testing was based on relatively shallow water (worst case--minimal catenary). Deeper water will reduce the need, but not unless the water is pretty deep!


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

wrwakefield said:


> Thanks for your questions and feedback, and for keeping me on my toes... It is always enlightening to review and examine one's methods, and to learn new ones.
> 
> I hope this helps make better sense of the approach I described.
> 
> ...


Perfectly. Similar to how I run a bridle. Thanks!


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

I use a bridle w/ chain hook, the bridle attached to each side back from the bow. 

I first roll-hitch the bridle around the chain .... several (usually 4) wraps (in stink anchoring conditions), then attach the chain hook above the partial rolling hitch. 
Chain hook doest fall off during bow action in steep waves, the bridle takes the strain, the chain hook stops the rolling hitch portion from slipping.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> .... With a longer snubber, the rope stretches during wave strikes , reducing the peak load about 3-5 times vs. chain alone......


It makes sense that a longer bit of snubber line will have more stretch, therefore, take up some load.

However, I still don't follow how you got to this conclusion.......



> I think it is also worth mentioning that if you have a proper snubber (about 1 boat length) the hook or knot *will never operate above 15% breaking strength*, even in a storm.


Is the 15% mark just coincidental to the chain and snubber sizes you used or did you determine this scientifically somehow?

I'm interested, because its occurred to me that one would want their bridle to break, before the chain. As I detailed above, our two new pieces of 5/8" 3-strand have a reported combined breaking strength in the same range as our chain and well above the chains working limit. Until I read about the Mantus cutting through the chain, I've never figured this was an issue.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> I'm interested, because its occurred to me that one would want their bridle to break, before the chain. As I detailed above, our two new pieces of 5/8" 3-strand have a reported combined breaking strength in the same range as our chain and well above the chains working limit. Until I read about the Mantus cutting through the chain, I've never figured this was an issue.


Precisely this is what I found the most disturbing. It is one thing if a hook bends and possibly releases the snubber. Not good at all but likely not an immediate disaster. It is a whole different story if the chain hook cuts the chain and immediately sets the boat adrift.

I understand what PDQ says, that in most cases the loads are well below the breaking load of the chain. But, if you rely on NEVER having a higher load, why do you have a chain of this size anyway? It sure does the sailing not any good to have hundreds of pounds right there on the bow.

Furthermore, even if the chain hook does not cut the chain right away, if its shape allows it to cut through the chain at higher loads (though the loads in the test were not unreasonably high, WELL below what the chain is designed to handle), I would think that at lower load it will do at least some damage. The chain used in the PS test was cut in _one_ trial, at the applied load (58% of chain breaking load). What if you anchor 10 times at 15% breaking load, what PDQ says happened in his own tests? Or 100 times? Probably you will not end up using the same link all the time but you will still do damage. And do I have to carefully make sure to never use the same chain link twice? You will run out of links pretty soon..

I think a chain hook that by design substantially damages the chain is a real problem.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> .....I think a chain hook that by design damages the chain substantially is a real problem.


That's for sure. I'm sure that Mantus monitors this site, since they are a sponsor, and have seen this thread.

If they never address this publicly, it will be even more disturbing.

Is this the kind of hook the article said caused no damage?


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> That's for sure. I'm sure that Mantus monitors this site, since they are a sponsor, and have seen this thread.
> 
> If they never address this publicly, it will be even more disturbing.
> 
> ...


No, I don't think so. This is as sharp on the inside as the MANTUS hook.

Here is one that should qualify. Notice the broad shoulders. It is load certified for over 7000# in the 3/8" version. And still only $12.50....

3/8" Clevis Grab Hook with Cradle - Grade 80


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> No, I don't think so. This is as sharp on the inside as the MANTUS hook.
> 
> Here is one that should qualify. Notice the broad shoulders. It is load certified for over 7000# in the 3/8" version. And still only $12.50....
> 
> 3/8" Clevis Grab Hook with Cradle - Grade 80


If you have the article and the time, it would be great to get the make/model of what tested well. Can I assume it was stainless?


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> If you have the article and the time, it would be great to get the make/model of what tested well. Can I assume it was stainless?


No, nothing stainless. Not even galvanized. Have to do the galvanizing yourself, or live without it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

This one looks interesting. Claims it doesn't lower breaking strength anyway, was it in the test?


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> No, I don't think so. This is as sharp on the inside as the MANTUS hook.


I have been using a stainless version of this hook for years and I'm pretty sure there is no damage to either of my chains.

Not that I have specifically checked but I'm sure that the sharp edge on the inside of the hook does not come into contact with the chain link that is in the slot, rather the two links on either side rest on the shoulders of the slot. These hooks are quite thick.

To be fair, it would take a reasonably dim-witted designer to design such a hook that has a cutting edge against the link it is supposed to be holding on. A bit like an auto-deflating life raft. 

Perhaps the secret is in using line on the snubber that will fail before the chain fails - after all it is just a snubber, failure is not a calamity. A failed chain on the other hand . . . .


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Was the Wichard 2985 chain grip in the article? I have three of them and have my own reasons for being less than thrilled. If PS looked at them I would be interested in what they say and who said it.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> It makes sense that a longer bit of snubber line will have more stretch, therefore, take up some load.
> 
> However, I still don't follow how you got to this conclusion.......
> 
> ...


Yes, the article was based on quantitative testing with load cells in an open anchorage. No guess work. Not entirely coincidental, be cause much higher than 15% the rope will fatigue.

No, you don't want either to break. But if the bridle is long and the right size, it wont. The trick is that the wind load is not that great, and that if the snubber is long enough, it doesn't really feel the waves too much, just like a long fishing line doesn't snap when a fish jumps.

Yeah, the Mantus thing is a surprise. Perhaps not a big deal, but a surprise. Sounds like the holy grail of chain hooks may have slipped away again. But I know a smart guy working on a new design!


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> ...
> 
> I understand what PDQ says, that in most cases the loads are well below the breaking load of the chain. But, if you rely on NEVER having a higher load, why do you have a chain of this size anyway? It sure does the sailing not any good to have hundreds of pounds right there on the bow....
> 
> ... What if you anchor 10 times at 15% breaking load, what PDQ says happened in his own tests? Or 100 times? Probably you will not end up using the same link all the time but you will still do damage. And do I have to carefully make sure to never use the same chain link twice? You will run out of links pretty soon..


Good questions. The same ones I was asking when I started.

1. Because there are time when the snubber is NOT in the loop. You just anchored and got hit by a huge wake before the snubber was in (that happened to me during testing and destroyed a load cell). Or during recovery; you try to motor up to the anchor, but s__t happens. Bad for the windlass too.

2. Metal fatigue depends on many variables, by the SWL is generally the point where that is a concern (20-25% BS). 15% is below the fatigue limit and will not contribute to fatigue. That is the whole reason for engineering below 20%.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> This one looks interesting. Claims it doesn't lower breaking strength anyway, was it in the test?


Looks interesting. No, it was not in the test. Clearly, the idea is to spread the load over as much as the link as possible. PS showed another hook (make/model not listed) that had a similar shape where it touches the link.

What make/model is this?


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Shockwave said:


> Rolling half hitches work fine to attach the snubber to the chain.


Perhaps they do to attach the snub to the chain very well, but I'd bet they are a bear to undo, especially if it's blowing something above 50 knots and the bow is pitching 6 to ten feet with each wave. Even to cut away a knot like that would take time and it would be pretty tricky on a heaving foredeck. 
I've never had one of the standard old galvanized chain hooks fail to hook or unhook, fall off the chain or apparently weaken the chain enough that I had a failure. And I feel pretty secure that the chain hook won't under any circumstances chafe through and fail.
If I'm using galvanized chain, I'm using galvanized hardware on my snub line.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> Yeah, the Mantus thing is a surprise. Perhaps not a big deal, but a surprise. Sounds like the holy grail of chain hooks may have slipped away again. But I know a smart guy working on a new design!


That would be good. Of course I now regret that I paid big bux for the stainless MANTUS hook and I would have expected that they would know how to design something they are supposedly specialists in.

It seems that an alternative that combines the advantages of both the MANTUS design (much more secure than an 'open' hook) and the broad shoulders of a cradle hook should not be too hard to come up with.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> Good questions. The same ones I was asking when I started.
> 
> 1. Because there are time when the snubber is NOT in the loop. You just anchored and got hit by a huge wake before the snubber was in (that happened to me during testing and destroyed a load cell). Or during recovery; you try to motor up to the anchor, but s__t happens. Bad for the windlass too.
> 
> 2. Metal fatigue depends on many variables, by the SWL is generally the point where that is a concern (20-25% BS). 15% is below the fatigue limit and will not contribute to fatigue. That is the whole reason for engineering below 20%.


Your second point makes a lot of sense.

I am not sure about the first one. Do you seriously think it makes sense to carry hundreds of pounds of chain in the most unfavorite position of the boat _ALWAYS_ with you, for years and years, just in case an unusually huge wave (must by quite a monster to snap a chain) hits you in the few minutes between the time the anchor sets and you attach a snubber?


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

capta said:


> And I feel pretty secure that the chain hook won't under any circumstances chafe through and fail.


Just to be clear, it was not the hook that chafed through, it was the chain that was cut BY the hook (at least by some of the hooks tested)

I actually have both a hook like the one you are showing and a MANTUS hook. The latter replaced the former. I also never had the simple type come off but the MANTUS seemed so much better designed and nearly make it impossible to come off when it should not.

Tt seems that both have the chain-cutting problem that PS is pointing out. I may have to increase my chain-hook part by a third model.

Who would have thought that something like a chain hook could be complicated?


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

The Mantus chain hook has been around for a few years now. Has anyone heard a report of a chain damaged by this hook in any way?

Longer term, have there been any reports of any anchor chain being damaged by any chain hook?

It certainly isn't a common occurance.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Just to be clear, it was not the hook that chafed through, it was the chain that was cut BY the hook .
> Uh, just to be clear, I was referring to this quote; "Rolling half hitches work fine to attach the snubber to the chain."
> I'm pretty sure a rope to chain attachment, especially on something like a snub line, could be subject to considerable chafe.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

capta said:


> Just to be clear, it was not the hook that chafed through, it was the chain that was cut BY the hook .
> Uh, just to be clear, I was referring to this quote; "Rolling half hitches work fine to attach the snubber to the chain."
> I'm pretty sure a rope to chain attachment, especially on something like a snub line, could be subject to considerable chafe.


Sorry, I misunderstood. You had talked about the chain hook not cutting the chain in the sentence immediately preceding, so I thought you were referring to that. Now it is clear.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Your second point makes a lot of sense.
> 
> I am not sure about the first one. Do you seriously think it makes sense to carry hundreds of pounds of chain in the most unfavorite position of the boat _ALWAYS_ with you, for years and years, just in case an unusually huge wave (must by quite a monster to snap a chain) hits you in the few minutes between the time the anchor sets and you attach a snubber?


Remember that if the chain is loaded beyond the WL very often it will crack and fail. BS is for one-time loads without corrosion. Yield strength of chain (permanent deformation) is typically about 55% if BS; it won't last long at all if loaded to YS. So not exceeding 15%-25% is basic good engineering practice. It is conservatively strong enough for a good service life. A good snubber makes sure you stay in that range.

And it doesn't take as big a wake as you think to do the damage (it was a 2500-pound load cell, holding an 8000-pound boat into 15 knots). Bam.


----------



## Noelex (Jan 23, 2008)

The biggest problem with chain hooks is many models can bend and jam. As this will then not pass through the windlass this can create a real problem if it cannot be released.

The best chain to snubber connection in my view is a soft shakle. It is strong, cheap, does not come off, it is quick to attach, will pass over the bow roller (or even the gypsy in an emergency) without problem and finally it can be cut (with difficulty) if necessary

A good alternative is a Prusik loop/Kleimhist hitch. I have found on rare occasions (unfortunately at the worst time) the rolling hitch will slip. Others report success with this knot so I did sometimes wonder if this is due to my lousy knot tying but I see:



pdqaltair said:


> In fact, I have tested that for Practical Sailor (published in a few months?) and learned that the rolling hitch will slip on chain when the load really comes on, typically FAR below 20% line strength.
> 
> So no. A number experienced high-latitude adventure cruisers interviewed for the project reported rolling hitches slipping and NONE of them still use a rolling hitch. We will discuss other knots that do work.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Looks interesting. No, it was not in the test. Clearly, the idea is to spread the load over as much as the link as possible. PS showed another hook (make/model not listed) that had a similar shape where it touches the link.
> 
> What make/model is this?


Sorry, the make/model was in the wording that re-sized too small in the pic.

It's an Ultra Chain Grab.

Here's the link..... ULTRA Chain Grab ? Ultra Marine West / Quickline

It's occurring to me (maybe I'm last to the party) that most chain hooks, from the original basic design to the Mantus, all put pressure on the side of the link. This grab takes up a link about where it was designed to have pressure applied.

Best I can tell, this Johnson Captain hook also applies pressure like the Ultra......... (was it in the test?)










Both of these are quite pricey, especially for 1/2" chain. The Ultra is approx $220 and the Johnson approx $150. Just for the hook!

I've already spliced stainless steel thimbles onto two 5/8" bridles and bought chafe-pro guards for where the line will go through the chocks. Bloody thing is adding up. As I was telling this to my wife last night, we did get to the same conclusion. It's a fraction of the cost of the 24v windlass.

My Mantus is going back. Again. I've had it for a couple of months, so if they won't take it now, I'm just re-purposing the shackle that came with it, which would cost me 1/2 of the cost of the entire hook to replace anyway.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> .....The trick is that the wind load is not that great, and that if the snubber is long enough, it doesn't really feel the waves too much.....


Did you test with one of these? If not, do you think they would effectively simulate having a longer bridle?

http://www.defender.com/product3.jsp?path=-1|2276108|2276131|2276134&id=33029










I'm still not totally understanding how the 15% of the chain's breaking strength number was determined. I do understand it was observed, but in what conditions: 1 foot wave action, 3 foot, steep or swells, etc? IOW, was it a variable that was dependent on the breaking strengths of the bridle/chain, or just coincident to what was actually used? If you happened to use a stronger chain, would the same loads have appeared and suggested a lower percentage? I'm not intending to pick on the study, just trying to understand where my own system's vulnerabilities lie.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

xort said:


> ....Longer term, have there been any reports of any anchor chain being damaged by any chain hook?


I infrequently see anyone using a chain hook at all, as most never anchor, nor volunteer to go out and anchor in unpleasant conditions. Secondly, I think we've all read about "mysterious" degradation of anchor chains. Who knows, this may be a cause.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> Did you test with one of these? If not, do you think they would effectively simulate having a longer bridle?
> 
> Falcon Safety Mooring Line-Master Snubber / Compensator - 5/8"
> 
> ...


Another PS contributor did. Pretty much useless, equivalent to about 6 feet of rope and more trouble to handle. Those are good for dock situations where there is no room for more rope.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> I infrequently see anyone using a chain hook at all, as most never anchor, nor volunteer to go out and anchor in unpleasant conditions. Secondly, I think we've all read about "mysterious" degradation of anchor chains. Who knows, this may be a cause.


:laugh

With short snubbers (~ 5', just long enough to clear the roller) you could be dead-right. No long enough to reduce the load, yet applying what may be serious misloading. Maybe they are even using an old piece of polyester DB. The worst of both worlds.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> ..Maybe they are even using an old piece of polyester DB......


I have, in fact, seen this. Guy sawed right through it.

I've fashioned 20ft of 5/8" 3-strand for snubbers. Not quite the full boat length suggested above.

Then again, in most condition, the 20ft will actually be lying on the bottom, let alone over 50.

edit...... my primary reason for the snubber is to unload the windlass, I don't typically anchor in serious fetch. But it does happen, so the study in the thread was enlightening. I initially planned much less line, but extended it. Not sure I want to have to deal with coiling up 50+ ft of two snubbers each time.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> Another PS contributor did. Pretty much useless......


I'm curious what a "contributor" means. I'm sure you use proper scientific method to draw your conclusions for PS. I wasn't always convinced that was the case, with all studies, when I was a subscriber.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> Sorry, the make/model was in the wording that re-sized too small in the pic.
> 
> It's an Ultra Chain Grab.
> 
> ...


To anwer your question, none of these were tested by PS. The only two 'marine' hooks were the Wichard and the MANTUS. All others were industrial hooks, some brand name, some no name.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> I have, in fact, seen this. Guy sawed right through it.
> 
> I've fashioned 20ft of 5/8" 3-strand for snubbers. Not quite the full boat length suggested above.
> 
> ...


I don't mind coiling some rope. But your previous point is more of a concern: Depth in a nice protected anchorage here in the Chessie is something like 10'-15', with my 4'6" draft I am happy even with less. A 40' snubber is not going to do me much good.

I know this is a bit of a thread drift, but I consider belaying the snubber at the stern, lead it along the deck, and over a snatch block at the bow. I remember reading about someone (may have been PDQ?) doing that on a cat. Anyone tried that on a monohull?


----------



## wrwakefield (Nov 18, 2015)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I don't mind coiling some rope. But your previous point is more of a concern: Depth in a nice protected anchorage here in the Chessie is something like 10'-15', with my 4'6" draft I am happy even with less. A 40' snubber is not going to do me much good.
> 
> I know this is a bit of a thread drift, but I consider belaying the snubber at the stern, lead it along the deck, and over a snatch shackle at the bow. I remember reading about someone (may have been PDQ?) doing that on a cat. Anyone tried that on a monohull?


RE: "Anyone tried it on a monohull?"

Yes. Our SOP if we need a longer bridle than our standard 80ft of 5/8in 3-strand nylon [e.g., storm bridle is twice that] or if we anchor in shallow locations [very rare in our current sailing grounds] is to run through the bow chocks [or alternatively over the p & s anchor rollers on the bow sprit] through the jib sheet return blocks on the stern, then to the primary winches on each side.

This allows either keeping the bridle off the bottom in shallow anchorages [your use case] or for a longer storm bridle [80 ft/side or more] that can be adjusted/managed from the safety of the cockpit in inclement conditions.

We are lucky that our deck configuration lends itself well to this approach.

We use ChafePro [Yacht Series] to mitigate chafe at the bow chocks and anywhere else it is needed [and on our 1in 3-strand nylon dock lines...] with great success.

In case this is useful.

Cheers!

Bill


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> To anwer your question, none of these were tested by PS. The only two 'marine' hooks were the Wichard and the MANTUS.......


Thanks anyway.

Just another example of how I got frustrated with PS and dropped my subscription. The captain hook is on all the marine supply websites, but they don't include it. I will grant that I'd never seen the Ultra before, but one would think a professional consumer product testing company would properly survey the field.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

wrwakefield said:


> RE: "Anyone tried it on a monohull?"
> 
> Yes. Our SOP if we need a longer bridle than our standard 80ft of 5/8in 3-strand nylon [e.g., storm bridle is twice that] or if we anchor in shallow locations [very rare in our current sailing grounds] is to run through the bow chocks [or alternatively over the p & s anchor rollers on the bow sprit] through the jib sheet return blocks on the stern, then to the primary winches on each side.
> 
> ...


Thank you, yes, very helpful.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> Thanks anyway.
> 
> Just another example of how I got frustrated with PS and dropped my subscription. The captain hook is on all the marine supply websites, but they don't include it. I will grant that I'd never seen the Ultra before, but one would think a professional consumer product testing company would properly survey the field.


Well, I see it differently. I for one don't mind that they skipped the 200 dollar hooks, given that they found some that do the job well for 10 bucks and change. Just what I can save on one chain hook pays for several years of the subscription...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Well, I see it differently. I for one don't mind that they skipped the 200 dollar hooks, given that they found some that do the job well for 10 bucks and change. Just what I can save on one chain hook pays for several years of the subscription...


Proving the $120 Mantus was flawed was very valuable, or you wouldn't know to focus on the $10 hook. Who's to say whether the others were any good. They should cover the field IMO.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

A chain hook "cutting through" a freakin' chain? I'd call that a flawed test. Where is this "data"?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> A chain hook "cutting through" a freakin' chain?* I'd call that a flawed test.* Where is this "data"?


Exactly what data do you base your conclusion on? Practical Sailor reportedly has some.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> Exactly what data do you base your conclusion on? Practical Sailor reportedly has some.


Show me the cut chain. I assume they have that?


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Show me the cut chain. I assume they have that?


Indeed they do. The chain broke at 3,606 pounds of load, which is 58% of breaking load.

I wrote this in the first post of this thread.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> A chain hook "cutting through" a freakin' chain? I'd call that a flawed test. Where is this "data"?
> >


On what base, exactly, do you call that a flawed test? Please explain how you came to this conclusion.

The data is on page 18 of Practical Sailor, March 2016.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Indeed they do. The chain broke at 3,606 pounds of load, which is 58% of breaking load.
> 
> I wrote this in the first post of this thread.


What was the spec/age/etc. of the chain? You said both chain hooks in the test "weakened the chain considerably/essentially cut the chain"?



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Even more disturbing was that both hooks weakened the chain considerably. The Peerless hook by 22%, the MANTUS hook by a whopping 42%! The reason is that the sharp corners at the inside of the MANTUS hook essentially cut through the chain.
> 
> So, by attaching a snubber to my chain with a MANTUS hook I decrease the chain's strength by nearly half!!


So, I'm asking for some back up data. I'd like to see some info about that chain...and see *exactly* what the failure mode was. What did that "cut" look like - for both hooks?

In the video I posted, he says that the hooks are "as strong as the chain". You're saying they are stronger? So could it not be a problem with the chain?

I just don't think we have the information needed to pick up pitchforks on this one right now. At least not with what you've posted thus far.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I don't mind coiling some rope. But your previous point is more of a concern: Depth in a nice protected anchorage here in the Chessie is something like 10'-15', with my 4'6" draft I am happy even with less. A 40' snubber is not going to do me much good.
> 
> I know this is a bit of a thread drift, but I consider belaying the snubber at the stern, lead it along the deck, and over a snatch block at the bow. I remember reading about someone (may have been PDQ?) doing that on a cat. Anyone tried that on a monohull?


This was in the article. 4 of the examples were very widely traveled monohulls.

I routinely use a 35' snubber in 6 feet of water. The trick is that the snubber terminates to the midships cleats, with chafe-free routing to the bow. If the wind pipes up I often move it to the bow cleats. In fact, most of the data was generate right in Herring Bay, off Fairhaven Beach.

Yes, the apex touches bottom occasionally, which does not harm. However, it is better practice to keep it off the bottom.

Regarding snubbers, like most things sailing, there is more than one right answer. Much of the time, the point is to generate thought as much as deliver answers. Most sailing magazines don't question much and NEVER the advertisers.

Regarding hooks, the selection may have been influenced by the fact that the tester is Australian. Or perhaps simply because he likes simple, cheap hooks. The bottom line is that there will be a Phase II; often we get a surprise result, rush to press with what we have if we are sure it is accurate, and then dig deeper as time allows. We're going to hear more about this. As I hinted, there is an article on rope to chain knots in the hopper.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> What was the spec/age/etc. of the chain? You said both chain hooks in the test "essentially cut the chain"?
> 
> I see you are an expert in this. I am sorry I did not copy the entire text for you and instead tried to summarize the essentials. With the Mantus hook, the chain showed permanent failure at 3,606 pounds of load, representing a 42 percent reduction in the rode strength. I said this in my first posting. A closeup at the inside of the Mantus hook (and others) shows the sharply radiused edge.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I see you are an expert in this. I am sorry I did not copy the entire text for you and instead tried to summarize the essentials. With the Mantus hook, the chain showed permanent failure at 3,606 pounds of load, representing a 42 percent reduction in the rode strength. I said this in my first posting. A closeup at the inside of the Mantus hook (and others) shows the sharply radiused edge.


So you don't really know anything about the chain? Okay. That's fine.



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> The chain broke under load at 58% of its full strength when held by the Mantus hook. If you want more information, I suggest you contact Practical Sailor.


You're the one that started this thread and are making these claims - so I'm asking you. I'm not going to subscribe to Practical Sailor for a single article. If you've got data to back up your claims, post it.



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Where do I say the hook is stronger? At the same load the chain broke, the Mantus hook was permanently deformed. I wrote that too in the first posting of this thread. Did you try reading?


Yes. I read your posts. In the video, Greg says the hook is as strong as the chain. You've made claims about how the hook weakens and cuts the chain - which would imply that it's stronger than the chain. Yet, you also complain that it "permanently deforms" at the same load that the chain breaks. So which is it?

Then, according to you, the Peerless hook didn't deform but also weakened the chain - just far less? How is that exactly?

Your math isn't adding up. That's why it would be good to know more about the chain and the exact failure mode. Is it really a cut, or is it a twist, or something else that cause the failure? Otherwise, what is the remedy?



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> The reduction in strength is relative to the breaking strength of the chain without this hook. That's how such tests are done.
> 
> As far as what 'the guy in the video' is saying, you realize that is a commercial?


Yes. And I also realize you're just an internet poster claiming there is a serious flaw with a product. I'm asking you for back-up so I can make up my own mind. As of now, as I said, there appear to be significant flaws in your data.



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Again, try reading what I have posted so far.


I did. That's why I posted.

This "cutting the chain" that you're claiming is actually an important issue. So show me.

Keep in mind PDQ's informed perspective regarding PS testing...



pdqaltair said:


> The bottom line is that there will be a Phase II; often we get a surprise result, rush to press with what we have if we are sure it is accurate, and then dig deeper as time allows. We're going to hear more about this.


+++++++++++++++

Your post - kept for posterity...



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> The current issue of Practical Sailor (March 2016) has a very disturbing test of chain hooks, used for attaching a snubber. They tested a whole bunch of chain hooks, both brand name and no-name. Most are marketed for industrial purposes but they also included the MANTUS hook. I mention the latter because it is specifically marketed for sailors and I have bought one and really liked its design and execution (and I have written how much I like it here on SN).
> 
> Two results disturbed me. First, during load testing to failure they discovered that the MANTUS hook deformed at a surprisingly low load. They show a picture of one which looks more like a pretzel after two dogs fought over it, after applying 3,606 pounds of load. This is quite a bit of force but only a bit more than half of the breaking strength of the chain they used (5/16"). The other hook they show (from Peerless) did not deform at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> So you don't really know anything about the chain? Okay. That's fine.
> 
> You're the one that started this thread and are making these claims - so I'm asking you. I'm not going to subscribe to Practical Sailor for a single article. If you've got data to back up your claims, post it.
> 
> ...


Smack, you have a serious problem, there is likely an entrance in DSM-V for that.

I believed that some people might be interested in safety-related information published by, IMHO, the most respected source in the field. Until you showed up in your Fight-Club mode, we had a very civilized and, dare I say, professional discussion. Several people, me included, hoped that MANTUS would explain what their point of view is in this matter.

Instead, you are asking me to 'back up my data' and other drivel. 
Helloooo, these are not MY data, these are not MY claims.Take it up with Practical Sailor. If you are too cheap to pay for the information, don't expect others to spoonfeed it to you. Or to violate copyright with a pirated copy.

Unfortunately, this is YET ANOTHER useful thread that you are dragging into the gutter. There is nothing I can do about that, the forum rules clearly give you the right to spout nonsense.

Even if this make Sailnet less and less useful, due to the actions of one single person.

Sad that I have to leave my own thread.

Hasta la vista. Everybody, have fun with Smackdaddy.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> A chain hook "cutting through" a freakin' chain? *I'd call that a flawed test.* Where is this "data"?....





Minnewaska said:


> Exactly what data do you base your conclusion on? Practical Sailor reportedly has some.





smackdaddy said:


> Show me the cut chain. I assume they have that?


Typical flow of discussion with you. I ask what data you have for your completely unsubstantiated claim and you simply ask for PS's data.

You've never accepted a manufacturer's word for other products (see MarineBeam LED thread), but you dig Mantus, so you are giving them the benefit of the doubt in their advertising, despite PS testing. You know Mantus watches this site and they have not uttered a peep. Can they provide their own scientific destructive testing? Practical Sailor did. My bet is they are scrambling to do it now, but how would we know. Mantus is silent.

I want to see Mantus' independent testing data that refutes this independent PS conclusion. If it's not dated long before Mantus went to market with their hook, that alone will speak volumes about Mantus.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I found this on the Mantus website, dated last week. 
Reportedly, they had to *downgrade their previous claims*.

They still do not address the impact on the chain, however.

Mantus Anchors | Mantus Chain Hooks: Load testing data revised - Mantus Anchors



> We reported earlier that our chain hooks matched the strength of the high test (G4) chain, and we did testing to verify this assertion. However, when doing preliminary testing we made an assumption that the load will be applied in the same plane as the hook: sample chain hook test. However when the hook is loaded with chain the chain loads the hook asymmetrically, so the new loads data takes account of this asymmetric loading and thus had to be down graded. Mantus chain hooks still match the strength of the G30 chain and to date we did not hear of any any reports of failed Mantus Chain Hook, this is after being 3 years on the market with thousands of hooks sold.
> 
> Greg Kutsen, President of Mantus Anchors.


From the looks of the photos in the published test, they simply put tension/sheer loads on the hook itself. I don't see where there attached it to a chain and pulled on the hook to see what it does in action.


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 8, 2007)

Smack I would understand your objections if we were talking about purely anecdotal evidence. Which many people profligate as fact. I find that very frustrating. 

Practical Sailor is an excellent publication and as far as boat bucks go it is cheap to subscribe. They are thorough and will expand on what the known strength and weakness involved with their testing. They are not filled with a bunch of advertisement because that is not how they make money. It is the Consumer Reports of sailing gear. Subscribe to the publication and you will probably save many more boat bucks then the subscription and will be much wiser. In fact when you come onto threads and try to correct all of the anecdotal BS that gets spouted you will actually have some real evidence to back up your smack.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Waterrat said:


> Smack I would understand your objections if we were talking about purely anecdotal evidence. Which many people profligate as fact. I find that very frustrating.
> 
> Practical Sailor is an excellent publication and as far as boat bucks go it is cheap to subscribe. They are thorough and will expand on what the known strength and weakness involved with their testing. They are not filled with a bunch of advertisement because that is not how they make money. It is the Consumer Reports of sailing gear. Subscribe to the publication and you will probably save many more boat bucks then the subscription and will be much wiser. In fact when you come onto threads and try to correct all of the anecdotal BS that gets spouted you will actually have some real evidence to back up your smack.


I'm very familiar with PS. And I typically have no problem with it. What I'm questioning is the editorializing in this thread...which certainly makes it seem like this was a flawed test.

I guess that's the fundamental problem with PS reports. We have to rely on anecdotal summaries because the actual data is behind a paywall.

And I don't have to "back up my smack". I'm just questioning the veracity of the comments in this thread. For example, were these statements in the PS article?



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> First, during load testing to failure they discovered that the MANTUS hook deformed at a surprisingly low load. The other hook they show (from Peerless) did not deform at all.





MastUndSchotbruch said:


> The reason is that the sharp corners at the inside of the MANTUS hook essentially cut through the chain.





MastUndSchotbruch said:


> So, by attaching a snubber to my chain with a MANTUS hook I decrease the chain's strength by nearly half!!





MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I really like how securely the MANTUS hook grabs the chain but I had not considered that it SEVERELY weakens the chain.





MastUndSchotbruch said:


> There is nothing I can do about a hook that cuts the chain.





MastUndSchotbruch said:


> It is one thing if a hook bends and possibly releases the snubber. Not good at all but likely not an immediate disaster. It is a whole different story if the chain hook cuts the chain and immediately sets the boat adrift.
> 
> I think a chain hook that by design substantially damages the chain is a real problem.


Maybe all of them were. I don't know. But as I said above, there is a lot of conflicting and very scant information in the above conclusions (and other posts).

Then you've got stuff like this starting to happen...



Minnewaska said:


> Honestly, I've always found Mantus to be suspect, so I'm kicking myself.


Is this based on facts from the PS article?

So if this is the really bulk of the evidence of those tests from PS - I call BS.


----------



## Izzy (Feb 14, 2016)

I looks to me like the sharp inner edge on the Mantus chain hook would be very capable of cutting a chain while under load. I'm glad an independent testing publication is looking into the matter.

It appears to be a design flaw which needs to be corrected.


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 8, 2007)

"I guess that's the fundamental problem with PS reports. We have to rely on anecdotal summaries because the actual data is behind a paywall. "

You have three choices. One is the "paywall" to fund the data, knowledge and labor of PS. Two have commercial advertising that funds the data, knowledge and labor for PS. Three have data be free but have NPR style where donors fund the data, knowledge, and labor for PS. Two creates significantly more bias testing scheme for obvious reason of biting the hand that feed you. Three is very difficult and requires a large group and seems hardly possible with the size of the market. 

If you would like to get the full story subscribe and support the data, knowledge and labor that can help all of us have a safer, more enjoyable time on the water. Not sure how you can expect someone to post on a forum the high lights of an article they read and wanted to discuss and not grossly summarize the conclusions that PS printed without copy right violations and undermining the very data, knowledge and labor they appreciate. 

The thread author recommended the chain hook and upon further information presented viable information that may refutes their claim. Hard to jump on someone for posting their anecdotal information might be wrong and here is why. I personally find the intelectual honesty quite refreshing.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Again, I have no problem with PS or how they want to run their business. I just have no interest in subscribing. That said, if this hook is really the "danger" that is being presented in this thread, PS should think about pushing this one article outside the paywall...for the good of the sailing public. It would be the right thing to do. (PS - If you're listening, send me the article and I'll do a proper review.)

In the mean time, "proving" anecdotal information in a forum wrong with more anecdotal information is the problem here. I'm not saying there is not a problem with this hook - but at this point I don't think anyone really knows what the problem actually is. I'm not sure I'd call that "intellectual honesty".


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

I am with Smack, obviously any consumer testing company should take advertising from the very products they test so that we can access the data they independently generate for free. This is exactly like Consumer Reports right?

/snark off



Smack if you don't want to pay for access to the data then don't. But in that case rely on the free testing available from the manufacturer.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Stumble said:


> Smack if you don't want to pay for access to the data then don't. But in that case rely on the free testing available from the manufacturer.


Or better yet, rely on an anonymous internet poster who is doing a questionable job of summarizing data from said consumer test? Okay.

Who else in this thread has read this report besides Mast?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I just read the PS article (renewed my online subscription). The OP here has restated their findings, essentially word for word. The issue is what they call point-loading, due to the sharp edges on the Mantus hook. 

They also have a pic of the Mantus hook set up to test, but not a pic of it failed. I do not mistrust that it actually failed and they document how it did so. The hook and chain both look brand new.

No doubt, Mantus (not the OP) has some explaining to do. Did they ever actually test their hook with chain? Doesn't seem so.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Well that was a waste of $20. But, since I'm such a good guy I figured it was worth a look.

Just as I suspected, there's a lot of BS in this thread.



Minnewaska said:


> I just read the PS article (renewed my online subscription). The OP here has restated their findings, essentially word for word.


Not quite, Minne.

1. Nowhere in the report is "cutting" of the chain by the Mantus hook mentioned. At all. *Nothing.* This was completely made up by Mast. Instead the article says this...



> Both chains failed at the hook. An examination of the Mantus chain hook shows that there is considerable opportunity for point loading. There are several other hooks on the market with a similar design, and their tightly radiused (sharp) edges will clearly impart point loading.


Point loading is not "cutting". And as PS says, there are many other hooks out there that do exactly the same thing.

2. I don't know if it will come through, but this is an image (presumably the actual test) of the Mantus hook being tested...












Minnewaska said:


> The hook and chain both look brand new.


Do you see what Minne's seeing on the working surface of that hook?

I linked to this photo because think it's important to understand the loading methodology. Make up your own mind as to whether it's an appropriate method. But I think it does go back to some of the earlier questions of whether these kind of loads CAN even be generated with typical rope snubbers being used (regardless of length).

3. The chain used in the test is not fully specified. And the article is misleading on this point. They first say this:



> Few, if any, realize that the $36 stainless chain hook they just bought might, under extreme loads, reduce the strength of their high-test G43 chain to the point that it is weaker than the less-expensive G30 chain.


So I'd assume G43 is being used. But then...



> For our test, we used a slightly undersized 8-millimeter (5/16-inch) chain that was compatible with the hook sizes. *We chose used chain* because it is representative of what is in use on many boats.
> 
> The original chain-without the hook-was tested and failed between the anchoring points; it broke at 6,274 pounds.


Assuming a WLL of 3,900 lbs for 5/16" G43 chain - and also assuming a MBL of 3X the WLL, I'm wondering about this chain that was used based on the above numbers. It looks like it was G30 chain.

Furthermore, and most importantly, despite this take from Minne:



Minnewaska said:


> The hook and chain both look brand new.


If you actually READ the article, you'll see that it was *USED CHAIN*!! So who knows what it had been through? But, to draw conclusions on how these hooks affect "chain strength" as a general principle from this kind of haphazard testing (and especially from this kind of misleading second-hand "reporting") is a bit beyond the pale.

Also, to be fair, the article says that *most marine chain hooks do decrease the strength of the chain*...



> Crosby, one of the world's biggest suppliers of attachments for the lifting industry, offers a typical warning for its A-338 Clevis Grab Hook, nearly identical in design to those sold at chandlers. "The use of A-338 Clevis Grab Hook will result in a 20-percent reduction in chain capacity."
> 
> Sadly, such cautions, conspicuous within the lifting industry, don't make it into marine marketing materials. Hooks that don't reduce a chain's strength are commonly used in the lifting industry, but the most popular designs in the marine market can significantly impact chain strength under extreme loads.


So I think we should keep all this in perspective.

4. The Mantus hook that was used for the test *was undersized for the chain used in the test*.



> The Mantus chain hook is slightly smaller, and is *described as a quarter-inch chain hook* that will also fit metric sizes of 6 to 7 millimeters; *it also fit our 8-millimeter chain*.


Back to the *point loading and deformation* issue? A mismatched chain and hook and you guys don't see a problem making generalized claims about the Mantus hook? Seriously?

5. The most important statement in this report that Mast/Minne did NOT include is this...



> *If any of these hooks are used with long snubbers, we see very little risk*- the snubber absorbs the energy of any snatch load that might point-load the chain.


This test is all about ultimate-strength snatch loads under a questionable testing methodology. Who around here is using dyneema for anchor snubbers?

Yes, I'd definitely say that this test by PS has some substantial flaws. Granted, I think it points out some interesting things that should be looked into further - for sure - *but with some RELIABLE testing*.

That said, if anyone here is jumping to conclusions based on the second-hand reporting thus far in this thread - you're VERY gullible.

Finally, I would certainly expect PS to do a better job than this. You can clearly see how things can spin out of control when things are half-assed.

You guys are welcome to start a GoFundMe page to get me my $20 back so I can buy a Mantus hook. Heh-heh.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

I'll ask again, is there any real world reporting of any chain hook causing the chain to part?

There was a LOT of high winds in the Exumas this winter, including a dorecho that came out of the west, a VERY exposed direction, with winds up to ONE HUNDRED miles per hour. I am certain that plenty of anchored boats were very exposed to big seas from long fetch. Unfortunately, many dragged. But did anyone break their chain?

PS, or the reports here anyway, claim the Mantus chain hook will deform. Any reports of deformed Mantus chain hooks? I would guess there were 500 to 1000 boats anchored in the Exumas during these constant high west winds this January amd February. 

Considering the note that if these hooks are used with long snubbers there is very little risk, then what is the real world concern?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The article clearly says the chain failed in the Mantus test at 42% of its breaking strength and attributed it to point loading. Therefore, Mast's analogy that the hook cut through the chain is a good one. To argue otherwise is nit picking. To argue that Mantus is not the only hook with sharp edges, is just being defensive........ "But, Officer, that car was speeding too". 

If you're happy with those results or don't care because you have a snubber of equivalent length to your LOA, then go get one. Makes little difference to me. I don't want a hook that does damage to my chain at any load. Mine is going back. I'm getting a claw type instead.

However, so far, Mantus has done nothing to defend itself from this independent test and the one study they did publish they had to acknowledge to be flawed. That tells me a lot about Mantus. What else haven't they properly tested? Crevice corrosion in their SS anchor or galvanization chafe at mating surfaces of their anchors?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

xort said:


> I'll ask again, is there any real world reporting of any chain hook causing the chain to part?
> 
> There was a LOT of high winds in the Exumas this winter, including a dorecho that came out of the west, a VERY exposed direction, with winds up to ONE HUNDRED miles per hour. I am certain that plenty of anchored boats were very exposed to big seas from long fetch. Unfortunately, many dragged. But did anyone break their chain?
> 
> ...


We rode out that derecho in the Jumentos on a Mantus hook. No damage to hook or chain. We use a bridle with 25' legs. I don't think boats experience as high of loads at anchor as many expect them to. Even with large waves. In 25kts, I retrieve the anchor just by pulling out the catenary, letting the boat pull forward as the catenary re-establishes, etc. No engines necessary, and no loads on the windlass. This is 5/16" chain on a 40' overloaded and high windage catamaran.

On the other hand, I really don't like this Mantus hook after using it for a year. It seems like a good idea, and performs exactly as advertised, but it's a real pain in practice. No qualms with Mantus - it is exactly how they present it - but it just isn't a practical product in daily use. Makes me dread anchoring.

I really liked the previous Wichard chain hook, but kept having problems with the pins bending. That actually wasn't a big issue because it is really easy to knock them back straight, but then the pins just broke. Granted, they were 8yrs old when one of the two pins broke.

So I recently made a couple of soft shackles. However, I'm having problems with them twisting up tight in use. It is a bit of a pain to untwist them enough to release them. I think making them out of larger diameter line may help, but that will need to wait until we can source some.

If that doesn't work, I think it will be back to the Wichard hooks.

Mark


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

Sometimes the original tests are run by the company on the product that was initially made very well by a quality manufacturing outfit. And then, several years later, they switch suppliers or process to cut cost or whatever other reason, and the new product supposedly meets the same specs, but it is not really just as good as the original stuff. Sometimes just having a different employee do a certain task can make a big difference in the final performance of the product.
I really doubt that Mantus faked or 'massaged' the data in the original tests. There is too much at stake and too many eyes watching these initial trials.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

colemj said:


> We rode out that derecho in the Jumentos on a Mantus hook. No damage to hook or chain. We use a bridle with 25' legs. I don't think boats experience as high of loads at anchor as many expect them to. Even with large waves. In 25kts, I retrieve the anchor just by pulling out the catenary, letting the boat pull forward as the catenary re-establishes, etc. No engines necessary, and no loads on the windlass. This is 5/16" chain on a 40' overloaded and high windage catamaran.
> 
> On the other hand, I really don't like this Mantus hook after using it for a year. It seems like a good idea, and performs exactly as advertised, but it's a real pain in practice. No qualms with Mantus - it is exactly how they present it - but it just isn't a practical product in daily use. Makes me dread anchoring.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your report. I dont understand your difficulty with the Mantus hook. Mine is pretty darn easy to clip and unclip. Are you using the plastic keeper?


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

xort said:


> I'll ask again, is there any real world reporting of any chain hook causing the chain to part?
> 
> There was a LOT of high winds in the Exumas this winter, including a dorecho that came out of the west, a VERY exposed direction, with winds up to ONE HUNDRED miles per hour. I am certain that plenty of anchored boats were very exposed to big seas from long fetch. Unfortunately, many dragged. But did anyone break their chain?
> 
> ...


Yes, that.

Still, we only learn by looking at things with a critical eye. Anchor systems very seldom fail from ultimate strength, but rather from fatigue. The real question is whether a metal hook (let's leave Mantus alone for a while) can fatigue a chain, when the loading is below the WLL. Maybe. This would be VERY hard to test because of the cycles required. It almost certainly varies with the hook design; some cradled it so gently I think this is unlikely, others, I'm not so sure. And of course, the same link will not be used every time, not like a shackle is stressed every time. There is a 10-50 times reduction in cycles due to distribution.

------

As for the statement that the chain was used, there were multiple samples tested and the rest all tested in the correct range. That is pretty good proof testing. Yes, I believe I was told it was G30 chain.

As for the slight size mismatch, that is not unusual. For example, 5/16" chain is pretty scarce in OZ, though 8mm is within a few hundredths of the same nominal size. In use, I would say there is no measurable difference. And equipment does get used.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

xort said:


> Thanks for your report. I dont understand your difficulty with the Mantus hook. Mine is pretty darn easy to clip and unclip. Are you using the plastic keeper?


I've found the plastic clip to be a breeze one-handed on the 1/4-inch size (the one PS initially reviewed) and harder to work with on larger sizes. The ergonomics didn't scale up quite right.

It seems like a soft shackle is the only full-strength solution that cannot come off? A prusik could be if made from Dyneema and paired with the right coupler.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

pdqaltair said:


> Yes, that.
> 
> Still, we only learn by looking at things with a critical eye. Anchor systems very seldom fail from ultimate strength, but rather from fatigue. The real question is whether a metal hook (let's leave Mantus alone for a while) can fatigue a chain, when the loading is below the WLL. Maybe. This would be VERY hard to test because of the cycles required. It almost certainly varies with the hook design; some cradled it so gently I think this is unlikely, others, I'm not so sure. And of course, the same link will not be used every time, not like a shackle is stressed every time. There is a 10-50 times reduction in cycles due to distribution.


This is also from PS' review of the Mantus Hook:



> When we reviewed the Mantus Chain Hook (see PS December 2013), we found a lot to like, but testers criticized the hook's tendency to come off the chain in some conditions, particularly when the chain was lying on the bottom in calm conditions. Mantus went back to the drawing board with the hook, and provided us with their newly designed injection molded latch retrofit to test.
> 
> A simple bit of engineered plastic, the new latch is easily snapped into place with the thumb and retracted just as easily, retaining the hook's simple one-hand action we liked. *We've tested it though 1,000 cycles (our thumbs are tired) and saw little wear. We also tried it out during many dozens of anchoring cycles over eight months, purposely letting it rest on all sorts of sea bottoms.* Not a single time did the hook come undone as it had before the retrofit. We like the new latch, and now can recommend the hook.


I would assume they would have seen chain fatigue/failure in those months of anchoring cycles?

That's why I think one needs to have a bit more critical an eye on these things than what we've seen in this thread.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

pdqaltair said:


> I've found the plastic clip to be a breeze one-handed on the 1/4-inch size (the one PS initially reviewed) and harder to work with on larger sizes. The ergonomics didn't scale up quite right.


I have the 5/16 Mantus with the plastic keeper. It is a bit too stiff. Simple solution is to file down some of the nub that holds it in the slot. Makes it much easier to operate. Still functions the same. Yea, seems they oversized it a bit on the larger hook.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

smackdaddy said:


> This is also from PS' review of the Mantus Hook:
> 
> I would assume they would have seen chain fatigue/failure in those months of anchoring cycles?
> 
> That's why I think one needs to have a bit more critical an eye on these things than what we've seen in this thread.


That latter bit would have been me. I've been using the hook since it came out (1/4"), anchoring about 50 times a year, with no obvious problems. Heck, the lock I used for 6 months was a computer-printed prototype, which worked just as well as the production version. As others have pointed out, the strain on a snubber is far below the WLL. Specifically, my standard snubber is very soft, a bridle made from 35' of 8mm climbing rope.

But one guy is a tiny sample pool. My review was just one of those little 1/2 page "new product" sorts that looks for obvious flaws. No testing to failure or special tortures. I write those reviews too, but this was not that. I did anchor with it enough to report that without the lock it could come off in the mud. Happened a few times.

Mantus will go the drawing board and work through this. We'll see. The truth is it's a thorny little problem with a small little market.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Cool. Thanks for the additional info PDQ.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I predict they will make a simple change to the surface of the hook that mates with the chain. The article does say the chain failed "at the hook" (again being Mast's cutting point).

Is no comment the best way for Mantus to deal with a published test of their product?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

xort said:


> Thanks for your report. I dont understand your difficulty with the Mantus hook. Mine is pretty darn easy to clip and unclip. Are you using the plastic keeper?


Clipping it on and off is easy. I had to file down the plastic part to get it to work. We broke that gate within a year of constant use (something I predicted to Mantus when I first got the hook), so it doesn't seem to be able to take the bend cycling they claim in our experience. And I'm not bending it dramatically - just enough to release it. It is in no way a one handed operation in our experience. Maybe on the smaller models with small bridle lines and the gate filed back to be very loose.

The biggest practical problem is its size and weight. It won't pull up though the roller, so we have to lean over the bow to attach/detach. You definitely don't want to accidentally drop it on your deck or foot. It is very cumbersome.

Again, it is exactly as advertised, but I find I do not like it at all in practice - no fault of Mantus.

Mark


----------



## Mantus Anchors (Dec 13, 2011)

Guys the most simple answer, is when Jonathan Nieves tested the Mantus Hook, it was done in a disingenuous way.
The Mantus hook that was used was a 1/4 inch hook designed for (1/4 - 6mm chain) but was tested with a (5/16 - 8mm chain), we have a hook for 5/16 chain that is meant for 5/16 chain. The Winchard hook that was used was for 5/16 chain, the Peerless hook was for 5/16 chain, so why use our hook in a way the we do not recommend and then comment on its flaws...? The hook even says on it what chain it is to be used with. This is pretty careless and given that fact it was published in a major US publication is sadly pretty damaging...
This really exposes the fact that an independent cruiser can do pseudoscience and get it published in Practical Sailor... pretty sad. This is not to say the Jonathan does not bring up interesting points for discussion in the article, he does but his methods and conclusions are a sad testimony that in today's world any ones opinion can get published as fact in a major US publication (that is considered to be a bible of tetchiness and accuracy)

Greg


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Mantus Anchors said:


> Guys the most simple answer, is when Jonathan Nieves tested the Mantus Hook, it was done in a disingenuous way.
> The Mantus hook that was used was a 1/4 inch hook designed for (1/4 - 6mm chain) but was tested with a (5/16 - 8mm chain), we have a hook for 5/16 chain that is meant for 5/16 chain. The Winchard hook that was used was for 5/16 chain, the Peerless hook was for 5/16 chain, so why use our hook in a way the we do not recommend and then comment on its flaws...? The hook even says on it what chain it is to be used with. This is pretty careless and given that fact it was published in a major US publication is sadly pretty damaging...
> This really exposes the fact that an independent cruiser can do pseudoscience and get it published in Practical Sailor... pretty sad. This is not to say the Jonathan does not bring up interesting points for discussion in the article, he does but his methods and conclusions are a sad testimony that in today's world any ones opinion can get published as fact in a major US publication (that is considered to be a bible of tetchiness and accuracy)
> 
> Greg


Wow, it was worth coming back to the thread, despite the intermittent smacky turn it took. Thank you for providing your point of view.

If it is correct what you are saying, Practical Sailor really does seem to have some egg on their face. Since there are several here that are affiliated with that publication in some way or another, could we get a reply from PS to this?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Mantus Anchors said:


> Guys the most simple answer, is when Jonathan Nieves tested the Mantus Hook, it was done in a disingenuous way.
> The Mantus hook that was used was a 1/4 inch hook designed for (1/4 - 6mm chain) but was tested with a (5/16 - 8mm chain), we have a hook for 5/16 chain that is meant for 5/16 chain. The Winchard hook that was used was for 5/16 chain, the Peerless hook was for 5/16 chain, so why use our hook in a way the we do not recommend and then comment on its flaws...? The hook even says on it what chain it is to be used with. This is pretty careless and given that fact it was published in a major US publication is sadly pretty damaging...
> This really exposes the fact that an independent cruiser can do pseudoscience and get it published in Practical Sailor... pretty sad. This is not to say the Jonathan does not bring up interesting points for discussion in the article, he does but his methods and conclusions are a sad testimony that in today's world any ones opinion can get published as fact in a major US publication (that is considered to be a bible of tetchiness and accuracy)
> 
> Greg


As I posted above, what you say is perfectly clear to anyone who actually takes the time to thoroughly/objectively read the article. I was suspicious enough about what was being said in this thread to pay for the subscription and read it myself. And I was very surprised that this thread went so long with those facts being misstated. Not cool.

Practical Sailor screwed this up. No question. And some of the guys here owe you an apology.


----------



## jeremiahblatz (Sep 23, 2013)

Not for nuthin, but Beth Leonard (blatant appeal to authority: author of the Voyager's Handbook) recommends a soft shackle (as have some of the less argumentative posters). Given that they're alleged to be easy to make, and are under $30 to buy, won't point-load the chain, and are preposterously strong, they might be a good choice for a lot of folks.

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


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Greg,

Since PS tested your product on chain mismatched to the product I would agree that this test has no value. I am wondering if you guys have tested the hook to destruction on properly sized chain, and if so what the results were.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Stumble said:


> Greg,
> 
> Since PS tested your product on chain mismatched to the product I would agree that this test has no value. I am wondering if you guys have tested the hook to destruction on properly sized chain, and if so what the results were.


Yup, that needs done. I would suggest G43 though; G30 is quite scarce at 1/4' I think (West Marine does not carry it, and most people using all-chain have windlasses, and most windlasses in the US are G43). I've been using the hook for years on G43.

From the Mantus web site:

*Hook Sizing Recommendations*
Hook Size WLL UBS Shackle (Size) Recommended Bridle Rope
1/4 in (6-7mm) 900 lbs 3,600 lbs 3/8 in or 7/16 in Shackle 1/2 in

Based on other testing (mine), the WLL and the actual working load of a single 1/2-inch snubber about 35 feet long is just about 900 pounds at 50 knots, used on a boat appropriate to that chain and depending on specific assumptions. If used as a bridle, the working load at 60 knots is probably closer to 1500 pounds in an open anchorage (estimated--didn't test that high) and the WLL of the bridle about 2000 pounds. My suggestion, however, is not that the hook needs to be stronger, but perhaps that the bridle needs to be softer than 1/2-inch (I use 8mm). Aside from the chain hook issue, the WLL of 1/4 BBB is only 1300 pounds and a softer bridle would protect all elements of the system.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

jeremiahblatz said:


> Not for nuthin, but Beth Leonard (blatant appeal to authority: author of the Voyager's Handbook) recommends a soft shackle (as have some of the less argumentative posters). Given that they're alleged to be easy to make, and are under $30 to buy, won't point-load the chain, and are preposterously strong, they might be a good choice for a lot of folks.
> 
> http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/snubber.pdf


I suggest one of the open or hybrid designs. The closed soft shackles that are most often sold are a bugger to open once they get dirty.

Better Soft Shackle | How to tie the Better Soft Shackle | Splicing Knots

I also like to make them considerable longer for this application; much easier to handle, since there is more to hold on to. I think most of the folks that have found them fiddly have used the conventional sort and/or too short.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Mantus Anchors said:


> Guys the most simple answer, is when Jonathan Nieves tested the Mantus Hook, it was done in a disingenuous way.
> The Mantus hook that was used was a 1/4 inch hook designed for (1/4 - 6mm chain) but was tested with a (5/16 - 8mm chain), we have a hook for 5/16 chain that is meant for 5/16 chain. The Winchard hook that was used was for 5/16 chain, the Peerless hook was for 5/16 chain, so why use our hook in a way the we do not recommend and then comment on its flaws...? The hook even says on it what chain it is to be used with. This is pretty careless and given that fact it was published in a major US publication is sadly pretty damaging...
> This really exposes the fact that an independent cruiser can do pseudoscience and get it published in Practical Sailor... pretty sad. This is not to say the Jonathan does not bring up interesting points for discussion in the article, he does but his methods and conclusions are a sad testimony that in today's world any ones opinion can get published as fact in a major US publication (that is considered to be a bible of tetchiness and accuracy)
> 
> Greg


First, thank you for weighing in.

Did you do destructive testing of your own, with the hook on a chain? I did see the pull test you did on the hook, while clamped to the testing device, had to be revised. That seemed coincidental to the timing of this article. What caused you to re-do this test?

Are you saying, the smaller hook would have a greater impact on the larger stronger chain? Why?

To make a counter accusation of pseudoscience, one would presume you have good science to back it up.

I'm going to hold off returning my hook, which is in the box as we speak, for you to show the result your own testing. That could change my mind, if you have it.

(p.s. As the manufacturer, if you're getting any marketing advice on this, I hope it is to proactively prove your case and not just try to criticize the other)


----------



## uncle stinky bob (Feb 28, 2016)

Stumble said:


> Greg,
> 
> Since PS tested your product on chain mismatched to the product I would agree that this test has no value. I am wondering if you guys have tested the hook to destruction on properly sized chain, and if so what the results were.


Respectfully disagree, it could have great value if Mantus sued PS for damage's. I'm sure they have seen a great reduction in sales of many product's over PS false reporting.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

pdqaltair said:


> I suggest one of the open or hybrid designs. The closed soft shackles that are most often sold are a bugger to open once they get dirty.
> 
> Better Soft Shackle | How to tie the Better Soft Shackle | Splicing Knots
> 
> I also like to make them considerable longer for this application; much easier to handle, since there is more to hold on to. I think most of the folks that have found them fiddly have used the conventional sort and/or too short.


I recently made up a couple of these using Even Starzinger's model and made them long. The problem I have with them are they get twisted pretty badly in use, which makes them a pain to untwist and remove. Not only do they twist on themselves, they twist around the chain. Actually opening them is the easy part.

I only had 1/8" Amsteel, so I'm hoping that this all goes better when I can get some 1/4 or 5/16" to use.

Mark


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

colemj said:


> I recently made up a couple of these using Even Starzinger's model and made them long. The problem I have with them are they get twisted pretty badly in use, which makes them a pain to untwist and remove. Not only do they twist on themselves, they twist around the chain. Actually opening them is the easy part.
> 
> I only had 1/8" Amsteel, so I'm hoping that this all goes better when I can get some 1/4 or 5/16" to use.
> 
> Mark


I use a broad bridle, so I have not experienced that. Sounds annoying.

Question; is the snubber 3-strand or double braid?


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

uncle stinky bob said:


> Respectfully disagree, it could have great value if Mantus sued PS for damage's. I'm sure they have seen a great reduction in sales of many product's over PS false reporting.


Before you get too excited, remember that Mantus reported false information by also testing the hook in a clearly invalid manner. Mistakes happen and pointing fingers does not bring light. We still do not know how strong the hook is on chain and throwing stones is a waste of time.

Both players need to pick themselves up and revisit this. My gut is telling me the hook will distort at a similar load, but I'm not willing to guess on chain failure.

Let's wait. I suspect both will retest. I'm hoping they both use G43, as that is a more product use than G30.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

pdqaltair said:


> Before you get too excited, *remember that Mantus reported false information* by also testing the hook in a clearly invalid manner.


PDQ - you really need to be careful with accusations like this. Mantus clearly showed the test results backing up their initial claim of hook strength:

http://www.mantusanchors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/QM121002869.pdf

It was not "false information". From what I see, they tested the hook _*itself*_ for breaking strength just like chain itself would be tested. There is nothing inherently wrong or "false" in doing this. They then revised the strength numbers based on the hook being used _with the chain_.

Here is the explanation if you just take the time to look:

Mantus Anchors | Mantus Chain Hooks: Load testing data revised - Mantus Anchors

Again, you've stated that you're a PS contributor. It's inaccurate statements like the above that starts threads like this and makes EVERYONE look unnecessarily bad.

I'm starting to think PS needs to beef up its legal department.


----------



## Mantus Anchors (Dec 13, 2011)

Why we think its acceptable to use a stainless steel hook inline with a snubber/bridle?

One first look one might make an argument that stainless steel hooks are too weak to use for snubbers and bridles especially when using hi test chain. But let us examine how snubber is stressed and how these loads differ from the ones chain experiences in the absence of the snubber. For examples lets assume we have a 35 foot boat and according to ABYC loads table at 42 knots of wind we can expect a load of 1800 lbs on our anchor rode, and a load of 2700 lbs at 60 knots of wind. A typical 35 foot sailboat will be outfitted with 5/16 chain WLL 1900 lbs and breaking strength of 7600 lbs. So why does the chain have to be so strong? Shock loads produced without the use of the bridle or a snubber can produces loads on the chain that are 3 times (or more) the average load experienced by the chain. In the worst situation in a 60 knot blow the shock loads on the chain would produce estimated loads of (2700 lbs x 3 = 8100 lbs). So the chain is tasked with having the breaking strength to 4 times the recommended working limit, and if we were using the hook to connect two pieces of chain the same requirement would necessitate.

However, the very fact that we are using the hook to connect a snubber to the chain these shock loads are to be dissipated by snubber and the snubbing hook will never see the loads the chain can see when used without shock dampening. 

When an argument is made that the chain hook weakens the chain, the answer is yes if it is used a to connect two chains together or is used to shorten the chain without a snubber. With the use of properly sized snubber one should never even approach the breaking strength of the chain as exemplified above.

What gives our hook an advantage over competition is it is easy to take one and off and yet it positively locks onto the chain. In a storm a dislodged hook could be a disaster… or try to pay out chain in a storm when the hooks keeps falling off is at best frustrating and possibly dangerous. So we are still of a firm opinion that Mantus Hooks is the best pick for a serious cruiser outfitting his/her boat.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

pdqaltair said:


> I use a broad bridle, so I have not experienced that. Sounds annoying.
> 
> Question; is the snubber 3-strand or double braid?


Not sure what you mean by a broad bridle. Ours is two 25' legs of 5/8" nylon brait, each leg attached to a bow (20' separation).

The twisting is around itself, like taking a loop at two ends and rolling it. Also, they roll around the chain as the chain rolls coming in.

I'm hoping this is mostly due to the small diameter of the line, and will be less of a problem with larger diameter. The rolling around the chain issue may be solved by optimizing the shackle length.

Mark


----------



## uncle stinky bob (Feb 28, 2016)

pdqaltair said:


> Before you get too excited, remember that Mantus reported false information by also testing the hook in a clearly invalid manner. Mistakes happen and pointing fingers does not bring light. We still do not know how strong the hook is on chain and throwing stones is a waste of time.
> 
> Both players need to pick themselves up and revisit this. My gut is telling me the hook will distort at a similar load, but I'm not willing to guess on chain failure.
> 
> Let's wait. I suspect both will retest. I'm hoping they both use G43, as that is a more product use than G30.


Well said.


----------



## Mantus Anchors (Dec 13, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> First, thank you for weighing in.
> 
> Did you do destructive testing of your own, with the hook on a chain? I did see the pull test you did on the hook, while clamped to the testing device, had to be revised. That seemed coincidental to the timing of this article. What caused you to re-do this test?
> 
> ...


 _We only criticize where we think there was a wrong committed.._


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Mantus,

I accept that a proper snubber will reduce shock loads on the chain, and that this also reduces the loads on the snubber. What concerns me the most is the off center pulling force the hook applies to the chain, and how this effects the overall strength of the system. 

It may very well be that any reasonable snubber will break long before it can apply enough preassure to the chain link to cause deformation, but so far as I am aware that hasn't been shown yet. 

What I would like to see, is a test with your hook placed in the middle of a length of chain and pulled to destruction. Ideally a G30 or G43 chain, appropriately sized for the hook being used. With the destruction method being videoed and released to the public. 

The thing is I have paid for this type of destruction testing in the past, and I know I can have the test itself done for about $100 at a local Certified testing center, plus the cost of the hardware involved. So any concern over cost is very minimal, heck if anyone is interested I will be happy to act as a coordinator and go down and have the testing done in my presence, with as many video feeds as possible. 

I don't consider the testing done by PS to be valid since it used mismatched chain and hooks, as has already been pointed out. I also discount the testing Mantus has done because as recent retractions have made clear load testing doesn't appear to have been done relative to the pull direction the hook applies. 

So as far as I can tell there has been no legitimate destruction testing of your product. With the limited testing available indicating a real world possible problem, and even your testing indicating it's an unknown. Basically you are selling a piece of untested equipment for a mission critical purpose. Sure it may work fine, but we have no way to quantify that at this point.


I should add that I don't think poor past test design indicates anything other than sometimes people design poor tests which is a very well documented problem amongst all research fields. I certainly don't think it indicates anything nefarious or wrong from Mantus. They performed testing in accordance with a reasonable schedule that has now been shown to have a deficiency. Correcting this and retesting is in my opinion warranted.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

smackdaddy said:


> PDQ - you really need to be careful with accusations like this. Mantus clearly showed the test results backing up their initial claim of hook strength:
> 
> http://www.mantusanchors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/QM121002869.pdf
> 
> ...


Your point is well taken... to a point. Thank you.

Common sense is that you test a chain hook on chain, not held in grips. This was an unintentional mistake on Mantus' part, but I think incorrect just the same.

And yes, Mantus is working on revising the error. I'm sure PS will too.

My point was that mistakes were made and if cooler heads prevail, they can all be fixed. I have also posted several statements that support that properly used on a long snubber or bridle (Mantus sells these and the specs are open) as Mantus has marketed the hook, the strength is very well matched to actual use. No Mantus bashing here, that should be obvious, and if it came across that way it was only the result of poor wording on my part.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

colemj said:


> Not sure what you mean by a broad bridle. Ours is two 25' legs of 5/8" nylon brait, each leg attached to a bow (20' separation).
> 
> The twisting is around itself, like taking a loop at two ends and rolling it. Also, they roll around the chain as the chain rolls coming in.
> 
> ...


Sounds much the same as what I do, so I am confused as to why that is happening to you. It's funny how some tiny difference in geometry changes the right answer. No advice.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Stumble said:


> ...It may very well be that any reasonable snubber will break long before it can apply enough preassure to the chain link to cause deformation, but so far as I am aware that hasn't been shown yet....


The point is not that the snubber breaks first, the point is that like a stretchy fishing line, a long snubber prevents impact on the hook above the WLL (900 pounds in this case). I did a lot of load testing of snubbers in an open anchorage last summer (same PS issue, BTW, 4 pages earlier) and proved exactly that; that the force on the hook does not exceed the WLL. Feel free to duplicate the testing; all you need is a boat, some ropes, and a load cell. So what Greg recently posted rings true. This is also why we don't have (to my knowledge) any anecdotal reports of snubber hooks breaking chains. It really can't happen. In fact, as I have posted before and can prove for the case of shallow anchorages (deep water is different--I didn't test that), a snubber is the only thing that will keep you from exceeding the WLL of the chain and shackles. You will only experience this if you get caught in shallow water on all chain when the wind come up. I exploded a 2500# load cell during testing because I did not see a ship wake coming in otherwise light winds. Bam. Had to redesign the test rigging.

(abbreviated from March 2016 PS)

wind 50 knots
wind force only 640#
8mm bridle 809#
1/2 bridle 1093#
All Chain 3401#


----------



## alctel (Jan 25, 2014)

I was pretty much on PS side until I saw they did the test with a hook that was undersized for the chain. That pretty much invalidates the test data.


----------



## Neeves (Mar 8, 2016)

I feel the need to clarify. However from the outset I do not want to become a regular contributor - I'd rather spend my time either sailing or testing. If there is a need for a comment - maybe someone can send me a PM. 

I have been testing chain and shackles for some years now and when retaining the chains always use a cradle hook or a derivation of a claw. These hooks are accepted by the industry as not causing any chain strength degradation. All of the testing is conducted in a NATA approved testing facility that tests chain and shackles etc on a daily basis.  The results are sophisticated and provide stress strain curves (though sometimes it is impossible to know what is stretching (in this case chain or hook). You cannot see what is happening - test samples are in a reinforced bed - when chains and shackles break - its like a drunk man with a very large gun, bits go everywhere.

I then wondered how 'our' hooks faired compared to the accepted industry standards.

I looked at the websites and most hook manufacturers state very clearly those hooks that cause degradation, usually between 20% and 25% and those that do not.

'Our' hooks look to be 'like' those that cause degradation. Hooks that do not cause degradation have a support for the whole link or crown. Those that cause degradation have a point loading surface, usually rounded (but for some hooks with sharp angular edges)

I simply tested as per usual, but using 'our' hooks at one end of a length of chain and an accepted (non degrading) hook at the other.

But I was not testing the hook for strength - only for its impact on strength of the chain - so I chose a chain previously tested that was weak compared to the hooks. The chain is also undersize, its nominally 8mm but is actually 7.25mm. The intent was the chain would fail before the hook.

This chain was a bit big for a 1/4" hook and a bit small for a 5/16th" hook. But the only 6mm chain I have is high tensile and imperial 5/16th" chain is too big for a 1/4" hook. The danger of using the G80 6mm is that it would point load the hook and be far too strong. There are no warnings on any of these products about using chain that is not an exact match. To allow ease of insertion of the link the, say, 1/4" slot is quite generous and it is actually possible to use good quality European metric 8mm chain in a 1/4" hook (I know I've tried it). Manufacturers have to accept we might not use equipment exactly as envisaged - if you cannot use something slightly bigger or smaller (that difference in size having an effect out or proportion - then it would be, say - unusual).

The Mantus hook specification was so good there was obviously no risk of damaging the hook! The Peerless hook, for example, was a G30 hook.

When the chains broke they broke in the hook under scrutiny. Normally if a chain breaks at the hook the result is rejected, the chain should break between the 2 hooks. Chain break at the hook means the hook has caused the break. The chain when tested, say in the Peerless hook, resulted in strength degradation exactly how Peerless have predicted. The strength degradation with the Mantus hook was totally unexpected, but not so surprising when you look at the load surfaces. The failure of the hook itself was totally unexpected (but now that I know how the hook specification was derived - I'm not now surprised).


The specification for the Mantus hook was derived (by Mantus) in a manner totally unconnected with how the hook is used. It looks impressive but is, basically, totally inadequate and was very misleading. The hook has obviously never been tested as it is used, with a chain in the jaws and load applied - as Mantus would then know yield is very low. I am concerned the hook is to continue to be sold as is - with those angular load bearing surfaces. Nothing, nothing at all should be sold that reduces the strength of a critical piece of equipment (like a chain) to such a marked degree. If that hook is used with a short snubber in seas the hook will endure high snatch loads. The chain being used might be an HT chain - there are no warnings about using 'only' G30 - it is possible the hook deforms and cannot be removed. 

How Mantus deal with this is their issue - but in the absence of any data derived independently (even if Mantus pay) then Mantus are simply fire fighting - a bush fire with a small bucket! Do not shoot the messenger before you have verified your position - currently it looks unprofessional and more worrying, grossly negligent. 

The fact that the lifting industry have been issuing warnings on specific designs of hooks for decades must be sufficient indication that there is a firm basis for the findings, its not rocket science, and denial is not a good look.

Jonathan


----------



## Tanley (Aug 20, 2009)

Neeves said:


> I feel the need to clarify. However from the outset I do not want to become a regular contributor - I'd rather spend my time either sailing or testing.
> 
> I then wondered how 'our' hooks faired compared to the accepted industry standards.
> 
> Jonathan


Jonathan, perhaps you can shed some light on any professional or commercial affiliation you have. When you say 'our' hooks, who are you referring to?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Neeves said:


> I feel the need to clarify. However from the outset I do not want to become a regular contributor - I'd rather spend my time either sailing or testing. If there is a need for a comment - maybe someone can send me a PM.
> 
> I have been testing chain and shackles for some years now and when retaining the chains always use a cradle hook or a derivation of a claw. These hooks are accepted by the industry as not causing any chain strength degradation. All of the testing is conducted in a NATA approved testing facility that tests chain and shackles etc on a daily basis. The results are sophisticated and provide stress strain curves (though sometimes it is impossible to know what is stretching (in this case chain or hook). You cannot see what is happening - test samples are in a reinforced bed - when chains and shackles break - its like a drunk man with a very large gun, bits go everywhere.
> 
> ...


Doing a fair and accurate test is not rocket science either Jonathan. Your test was poorly documented, poorly executed, and inherently flawed. It's that simple.

Next time do a proper test and we won't have these issues. You screwed up. And so did PS. Don't blame Mantus for that. Because, you're right, denial is not a good look.


----------



## Mantus Anchors (Dec 13, 2011)

Neeves said:


> I feel the need to clarify. However from the outset I do not want to become a regular contributor - I'd rather spend my time either sailing or testing. If there is a need for a comment - maybe someone can send me a PM.
> 
> I then wondered how 'our' hooks faired compared to the accepted industry standards.
> 
> ...


_The article clearly states the chain used was 8mm chain, there are standards for this so I am not sure where 7.25 mm comes from. 
DIN standard 8mm = 8mm, L Grade Chain is the Australian chain 8mm = 8mm +/- 0.2 mm

http://borderlifting.com.au/index.php/lifting-chains-fittings/pwb-anchor-lifting-chains-a-fittings/pwb-anchor-grade-l-chain

The reason size of the chain used is important, is two fold:
One, Jonathan is claiming that the bearing surface area of the hook interacting with the chain is important and if insufficient would induce point loading on the chain. Well using a smaller hook not designed to be used with this size chain with a smaller surface area interacting with the chain will clearly result in more pronounced point loading by this hypotheses, using a appropriate hook might lead to different results? Plus getting values from a single pull for this purpose is probably flawed.

Second, Jonathan comments on other hooks in the article and how they did not deform during testing, and points out how the Mantus hook deformed but fails to account that he is using a hook that was undersized for chain, the website and the marking on the hook clearly delineate which hook is to be used with which size chain as are markings on the hook itself.
Mantus Anchors | Mantus Chain Hook - Mantus Anchors

So unfortunately we think, the hypothesis is poorly tested and conclusion unfounded. The conclusion of the article is that rolling hitch is the way to go, but is there any evidence that the rolling hitch will hold to a breaking strength of chain or any testing or reference given to suggest that a rolling hitch is good to certain load for a given size of chain and line. We are not opposed to a rolling hitch, in fact think it to be a reasonable option but to strongly come out against the use of chain hooks as a method of attaching the snubber to chain , in my humble opinion is not founded _


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> .....
> Here is the explanation if you just take the time to look:
> 
> Mantus Anchors | Mantus Chain Hooks: Load testing data revised - Mantus Anchors


This is the same link that I provided above and quoted what was there at the time, in my post.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/3378441-post67.html

It's been heavy edited since yesterday (although still dated Feb 29), so criticizing the time to look isn't justified. I looked.

It only now identifies that updated testing is underway. I'm still disturbed that it was never tested on chain before. I am interested to see what they find, along with any retest by PS.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Mantus Anchors said:


> ......When an argument is made that the chain hook weakens the chain, the answer is yes if it is used a to connect two chains together or is used to shorten the chain without a snubber. With the use of properly sized snubber one should never even approach the breaking strength of the chain as exemplified above........


Did anything that comes with the hook, specify both the dimension and length of a snubber that should be used to avoid chain weakening? As I recall, nothing mentioned chain weakening at all.

I don't plan to have a snubber equal to my LOA, as others have suggested. Like most, seriously most, boaters, the snubber is typically a few feet off the bow and doing nothing more than unloading the windlass. Is that properly sized?

I look forward to seeing the new tests you've commissioned.

What destructive testing have you done on your anchors?


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> Did anything that comes with the hook, specify both the dimension and length of a snubber that should be used to avoid chain weakening? As I recall, nothing mentioned chain weakening at all.
> 
> I don't plan to have a snubber equal to my LOA, as others have suggested. Like most, seriously most, boaters, the snubber is typically a few feet off the bow and doing nothing more than unloading the windlass. Is that properly sized?
> 
> ...


As a catamaran sailor, I have never used a snubber less than 20 feet, so that did not seem crazy. Another sailor suggested anchoring the snubber farther back, making it practical at long lengths in shallow water. But the case for 25-40' snubbers was suggested to us by several cirumnavigators and high latitude sailors, so it is very well proven.

But as you say, short snubbers are common, and then the load data is more like this (shallow water, open anchorage--a worst case).

Wind Speed 30 knots
1/2" x 6' 800# (measured--not a projection)
All Chain 1000-1200# (our measurement vs ABYC, some difference in boat types)

The WLL for the rope will be reached at 40 knots and the chain at 50 knots, assuming no wear. This is when things start breaking.

Wind speed 60 knots
1/2" x 6' 3200#
All chain 4100-4900# (our estimate vs ABYC, some difference in boat types)

Now you are operating past the WLL on the chain, shackles, snubber, and hook. Your roller may bend. If you used a knot, you are near breaking strain, since the knot lowers the rope strength.

If you are in deeper water (smoother and more chain) things are not as bad.

My suggestion to those that do not want to use a longer snubber is to have one, even if it is dock lines, to use if you ever get caught in a bad spot. A reasonable compromise.


----------



## Neeves (Mar 8, 2016)

Tanley said:


> Jonathan, perhaps you can shed some light on any professional or commercial affiliation you have. When you say 'our' hooks, who are you referring to?


'Our' hooks - those used by the sailing or cruising community.

I have no commercial nor professional affiliations. I'm freelance and independent. If I have shown bias, PS take it out, if I show continued bias PS would drop me like a hot potatoe. They are built on independence and no bias. I'm concerned about safety and take no prisoners. I like writing for PS as I do not need to pander to an advertiser. If a manufacturer shows dislike of what I do, I consider if I have been unfair, and if I feel comfortable I think I'm doing the right sort of things.

I do have preferences, I'm human, and buy what I think is the best for us. I accept that different owners have different needs and our choice might not be ideal for them - I hope I take those needs and demands into account. My preferences can show through as I'm not sufficiently wealthy that I can have 8 different anchors, 6 different windlass etc.

Jonathan


----------



## Mantus Anchors (Dec 13, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> This is the same link that I provided above and quoted what was there at the time, in my post.
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/3378441-post67.html
> 
> ...


I am sorry may be I was not clear, but I thought I did say that we did test our 1/4 inch hook to failure with chain, and used these numbers to correlate the FEA model. Unfortunately we can not test bigger chain sizes in house, thus in the next 14 days we will have the independent testing published for you to see. The edits to the post you mention where made to better explain the issue, I hope they were helpful.
greg


----------



## Neeves (Mar 8, 2016)

In reply to Mantus



The chain was not Grade L but sold as 8mm, short link anchor chain. It happened to be very poor and ideal for the test envisaged. Your 1/4" hook is sold for chain 6-7mm - what's the big deal about an extra 0.25mm of chain diameter? If the hook is that sensitive to size - I'd like to see some evidence to support the concept. Oddly being undersize did not impact the result on the Peerless chain, possibly this can be incorporated in any future explanation.

The objective was simply to look at the effect of a hook on chain strength - to double degradation (from 20% to over 40%), to me, is significant. If degradation had varied from 20% to say 25% - no issue, or not much. 

But to argue about a change in degradation from 22% (predicted) to 42% needs a bit more than just guess work.


The work was about testing the hypothesis that 'our' chain hooks are not ideal. The result threw up something else. I'm not defending other chain hooks - in fact if you read the article I say buy a cradle hook, I do not say buy a conventional, one of 'our' hooks - I say buy a cradle hook. The fact the Mantus hook was 2 times worse than anticipated was a surprise and was note worthy. You have already accepted, as a result of the PS work, that your specification was totally invalid - credit where credit due?? You have not provided any evidence that the rest of the information is not valid, I understand you do not want it to be valid - but 'wants' need substantiation.


I'm quite happy to take on board all of the comments made. I'm the first to admit one test is statistically weak (having managed a research team in the steel industry one test needs re-validation). But you will note I destroyed the chain hook (unexpectedly - it did not meet specification) and I do not have another. However the result was sufficiently disappointing and impinging on safety to merit publication, now. I hope the members of this forum would agree with the immediacy. 

I note also you are saying that after 'thousands' of sales over 3 years you have no reports of damaged hooks - the issue is actually not with the hooks but the chain. If the links are being weakened the owner might not notice, until some other stressful time occurs - and then blame might be apportioned to the chain maker not the hook. If the hook fails all that happens is the chain takes the load - if the chain fails - the yacht is on the beach. Mantus appear to be glossing over this issue - or completely ignoring it. 

It merits note - if there are chain failures over the next few years I would anticipate chain makers looking at the chain hook and snubber used. 

I do recall an anchor makers acknowledging their shanks were weak, continuing to sell those same anchors for at least 6 months (with the weak shanks) and only declaring the upgrade and free replacement when the new shanks were available. I thought this was tawdry and potentially dangerous - so keeping quiet is not my line.

But I take on board the criticism and am more than comfortable to repeat the tests and to be shown to be a complete idiot. I'd rather stand up and be found to be an idiot than, possibly, if I were of a sensitive nature, keep quiet and allow yachts to be on beaches

So I'm happy yo use 1/4" chain, use G30 (as that is now the specification for the hook). 

So - if Mantus are prepared to send me a new hook and a minimum of 25 links of a G30 1/4" chain I will arrange to test. I will publish the stress strain plot. I will do the testing under my account (its not cheap). I need 25 links as I need to test 'correctly' and with the Mantus hook, so 2 tests to break. 

I have a time constraint - I will be testing in about 4 weeks, so middle end April. I then have a scheduled trip to Europe from mid May, part of my research. So anything arriving after the end of April will be subject to a major delay.

Jonathan


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Neeves said:


> 'Our' hooks - those used by the sailing or cruising community.
> 
> I have no commercial nor professional affiliations. I'm freelance and independent. If I have shown bias, PS take it out, if I show continued bias PS would drop me like a hot potatoe. They are built on independence and no bias. I'm concerned about safety and take no prisoners. I like writing for PS as I do not need to pander to an advertiser. If a manufacturer shows dislike of what I do, I consider if I have been unfair, and if I feel comfortable I think I'm doing the right sort of things.
> 
> ...





Neeves said:


> In reply to Mantus
> 
> The chain was not Grade L but sold as 8mm, short link anchor chain. It happened to be very poor and ideal for the test envisaged. Your 1/4" hook is sold for chain 6-7mm - *what's the big deal about an extra 0.25mm of chain diameter?* .....
> 
> ...


Holy crap. I really hope PS is paying attention to this. Its reputation is quickly going into the toilet here.



Neeves said:


> So - if Mantus are prepared to send me a new hook and a minimum of 25 links of a G30 1/4" chain I will arrange to test. I will publish the stress strain plot. I will do the testing under my account (its not cheap). I need 25 links as I need to test 'correctly' and with the Mantus hook, so 2 tests to break.
> 
> I have a time constraint - I will be testing in about 4 weeks, so middle end April. I then have a scheduled trip to Europe from mid May, part of my research. So anything arriving after the end of April will be subject to a major delay.


You're joking, right?


----------



## Shockwave (Feb 4, 2014)

The hook is probably investment cast in China, not sure if it's drawn down or as cast, doubtful it's xrayed. If there is a sharp edge on the inside the wax department is not removing the parting line cleanly. Cost is $3~5 for the little one, maybe $10 for the big one, tools are about $5~800 per part number. Tensile testing was probably done for Mantus by the foundry but doesn't replicate the actual hook to chain attachment. Oops.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

So I was just poking around on Mantus' website and found this update to their chain hook page.

_We reported earlier that our chain hooks matched the strength of the high test (G4) chain, and we did testing to verify this assertion. However, when doing preliminary testing we made an assumption that the load will be applied in the same plane as the hook: sample chain hook test_

_However when the hook is loaded with chain the chain loads the hook not only in tension but also introduces as bending load, so we had to retest the hooks, the new loads data takes account of this asymmetric loading and thus had to be down graded. Loads published on the website reflect Fine Element Analysis Modeling and testing of 1/4 inch chain hook to failure. Independent tests by SGS using chain are in the works and will be published as soon as they are available.

To date we did not hear of any any reports of failed Mantus Chain Hook, this is after being 3 years on the market with thousands of hooks sold._

This is exactly the responce I hope to see from a responsible company. First they recognized an issue that may or may not effect what they have been advertising, took an honest look at what they were saying and indicated why they they did what they did, and why they thought it was reasonable. Then plan to immediatly retest their products to take into account better methodology.


----------



## Mantus Anchors (Dec 13, 2011)

Neeves said:


> In reply to Mantus
> 
> The chain was not Grade L but sold as 8mm, short link anchor chain. It happened to be very poor and ideal for the test envisaged. Your 1/4" hook is sold for chain 6-7mm - what's the big deal about an extra 0.25mm of chain diameter? If the hook is that sensitive to size - I'd like to see some evidence to support the concept. Oddly being undersize did not impact the result on the Peerless chain, possibly this can be incorporated in any future explanation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Mantus Anchors said:


> I am sorry may be I was not clear, but I thought I did say that we did test our 1/4 inch hook to failure with chain, and used these numbers to correlate the FEA model. Unfortunately we can not test bigger chain sizes in house, thus in the next 14 days we will have the independent testing published for you to see. The edits to the post you mention where made to better explain the issue, I hope they were helpful.
> greg


The edited page on your website, does now say you tested the hook with chain. It was not clear when I read it prior to yesterday's edits. I look forward to seeing the new independent tests, but it's still unclear to me, why you don't publish the tests you now say you did yourself. You changed the WWL of the hook, but no mention of the chain weakening that you acknowledge is also applicable now.

You did not reply to any of my other questions above.

1. Does any printed material issued with the hook, describe the dimension and length of a snubber that is necessary to avoid chain weakening?

2. Is the common short snubber adequate to avoid chain weakening, with a Mantus hook?

3. What destructive testing have you done on your anchors? I ask this, only since you've acknowledged a flaw in your methods on the hook.

I had to return one of your galvanized hooks, that was poorly made. It was visually obvious, with bad grind marks and separating galvanizing, but went out your door anyway. I then broke down and bought the stainless steel one, after having a bad feeling from the first, as I thought your dual movement design was clever.

I do not recall reading about chain weakening in your literature, which is why I asked above. Maybe I'm the only sailor that never knew this, there are a ton of things I don't know. Chain weakening should have been disclosed, even if it proves to be similar to other hooks. If it is, I'll thank you for pointing us to it.

I have already ordered an ULTRA Chain Grab, which I now understand, being a cradle design, does not weaken the chain. I just dropped the cash last year to put 300ft of 1/2" G4 chain aboard and I'm not excited about any hook that might mess with it. When the ULTRA arrives, I'm going to see if fashioning a length of velcro, will help it from falling off, if load is released. The new plastic gate on the 1/2" Mantus is very difficult to swing (the galvanized version didn't come with one). I gave it to my wife and showed her what to do and she found it nearly impossible. Not impossible for me, but notably hard.

edit: Just noticed this posted to your website, dated yesterday. It does not describe what a proper snubber actually is. I've literally seen people simply attach a snubber on the foredeck to unload the windlass, that isn't more than a couple of feet long and doesn't even pass the bow roller. This writeup could be read to suggest that would keep your hook from ever seeing it's WLL.

http://www.mantusanchors.com/using-stainless-steel-chain-hooks-with-your-snubberbridle/


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> .....My suggestion to those that do not want to use a longer snubber is to have one, even if it is dock lines, to use if you ever get caught in a bad spot. A reasonable compromise.


Pretty good suggestion, if ever caught in something that nasty.

As I've been trying to research my way through this, it seems the weakest link in this entire system is the shackle connected to the the hook.


----------



## BillB36 (May 4, 2015)

I am a long time reader of Practical Sailor. Jonathan Neeves has been the only contributor I read that I think had a bias. I don’t own a Mantus though I would urge searching for Mr. Neeves postings on Cruisers Forum to see any bias at Mantus. I read his anchor post there and I do believe I see a bias. As a interested reader of Practical Sailor it breaks my heart to see the good magazine tarnished with jaded authors. I mean no ill respect to Mr. Neeves because every human has bias it just causes me to feel ill what I read on Cruisers then Practical Sailor. Read Mr. Neeves writings about the Mantus on the CF before passing a verdict.


----------



## Mantus Anchors (Dec 13, 2011)

Minnewaska, you see the blog page being edited because I am editing to make it more complete..... I do not think you found anything inconsistent except more information... otherwise please correct me, as you can imagine as more information is available I will be updating the same blog post so there is one place to to see the latest information and the date I update the post is clearly displayed.

We do not mention chain weakening by the hooks because we do not think it is a concern when the hook is used as a snubber. You are right we should put a warning against using short snubbers in rough conditions. What we think is an appropriate snubber length recommendation mirrors our bridle design... and there is also a good reference in the PS article by Drew Fry in the issue.
What is Ideal Snubber Size? - Practical Sailor Print Edition Article

Anchor Testing: what we did: we did non-destructive testing where we pulled common size anchors to ABYC predicted maximal loads expected on a given anchor size, we analyzed the bolted joint here...Mantus Anchors | The Anchor Bolts - Mantus Anchors and we did lateral bending testing on shanks in the middle of heated discussions on desired shanks strength on Sailnet.

Greg


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Stumble said:


> So I was just poking around on Mantus' website and found this update to their chain hook page.
> 
> _We reported earlier that our chain hooks matched the strength of the high test (G4) chain, and we did testing to verify this assertion. However, when doing preliminary testing we made an assumption that the load will be applied in the same plane as the hook: sample chain hook test_
> 
> ...


Greg... In my line of business that is called 'Continuous Product/Quality Improvement' and any company worth their salt continues to improve their product and Mantus has shown it is doing just that to be competitive. I would have no issue buying any of the Mantus products and their warranties on their products insures you get what you pay for and then some.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Mantus Anchors said:


> Minnewaska, you see the blog page being edited because I am editing to make it more complete..... I do not think you found anything inconsistent except more information... otherwise please correct me, as you can imagine as more information is available I will be updating the same blog post so there is one place to to see the latest information and the date I update the post is clearly displayed.


I'm good with updates. I'm hoping you do. I bought your product (twice). I was only pointing out that the information another poster here suggested was available for research, had only appeared in the prior 24 hrs.

I do not, however, see where "the date I update the post is clearly displayed". I just looked and it still says Feb 29, under your sig.



> We do not mention chain weakening by the hooks because we do not think it is a concern when the hook is used as a snubber. You are right we should put a warning against using short snubbers in rough conditions. What we think is an appropriate snubber length recommendation mirrors our bridle design... and there is also a good reference in the PS article by Drew Fry in the issue.
> What is Ideal Snubber Size? - Practical Sailor Print Edition Article


Good info. Should be included with the hook. The buyer should have the knowledge that this issue even exists.



> Anchor Testing: what we did: we did non-destructive testing where we pulled common size anchors to ABYC predicted maximal loads expected on a given anchor size, we analyzed the bolted joint here...Mantus Anchors | The Anchor Bolts - Mantus Anchors and we did lateral bending testing on shanks in the middle of heated discussions on desired shanks strength on Sailnet.


Personally, I'm not concerned over the initial strength of the bolts. I am with the potential for crevice corrosion on the SS model or galvanization chafe and subsequent rust on that model, if they are left in service year round. I don't recall the lateral shank discussion, but it makes sense that should be done. Can't tell if you did so prior to going to market.

I do thank you for changing your approach to making your own case, rather than criticizing others. It's the best approach to handle a PR issue anyway.

I look forward to seeing the results of your testing. Your hook remains on my counter.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I read the Mantus thread over on CF:

It's True! The Mantus 65-lb. hooks first time, everytime. - Page 8 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

My own opinions and conclusions from that read...

1. Neeves, you are so prejudiced on Mantus that you have no business EVER reviewing its products. Considering your clear dislike of Mantus and its owner, your sloppy and flawed testing methodology of these chain hooks, your errant "conclusions" thrown out atop these flaws, and then your inability to understand the significance of these flaws ("what's the big deal?") - it's clear, in my opinion, that you have ZERO scientific or journalistic objectivity and/or integrity in this particular arena. Nothing you write on these matters can or should be taken seriously.

2. In light of the above, the fact that Practical Sailor published your work is mind-blowing. PS purports itself to be THE trustworthy source for "... taking the guesswork out of boat and gear buying with bold, independent boat tests, and product-test reports for serious sailors and boaters." - yet they publish your flawed test and article, *even after *what happened in the CF thread? Unbelievable. I would say they have a far blacker eye than _anyone_ in this whole debacle. This thread is clear evidence of that.

Here is what you said in one of your posts in that CF thread:



> *JonJo* - cruiser
> I am quite happy to be shown to be a complete a**h**e - out to destroy the reputation of a lovely company and its staff on no basis nor foundation.


You said it.


----------



## Neeves (Mar 8, 2016)

I confess to bias, thank you Smackdaddy for pointing it out.

I dislike sloppy products that are potentially unsafe.

The Mantus anchor was initially sold with a mild steel shank, did they never hear of Rocna? When the defect was pointed out they continued to sell for 6 months when waiting for the new HT shanks.

I was sent FOC a 15kg anchor to test. It arrived with mild steel bolts, not the Class 8 bolts specified.

More recently someone has received a Mantus anchor where the bolts are too short, they do not fill the nuts (I think by one thread)

Greg suggested that the anchor will work perfectly without the roll bar, it doesn't, I tried it.

Mantus sell a stainless anchor, I'm not sure where they get Class 8 bolts for assembly, maybe they use bigger bolts.

The roll bar has been shown to be prone to bending, this will not be an issue in sand but might be in coral and rock.

Greg seems to be now saying that the chain hook is safe if used with a correctly chosen snubber, the implication might be that otherwise safety may be compromised. There appears to be ambiguity here.

The hook was sold focussed at the G43 market. The market is now G30. Apart from a notification on the website I have not seen a clear and unambiguous statement on change of application on other forum or other medium.

I am happy to excuse an error, when it is corrected quickly and anyone impacted advised - but this is too long a list, its systemic. I am not aware of a similar catalogue by other manufacturers.

The only anecdotal comment is the one regarding the short bolt. I'm sure if I wanted I could obtain images.

If this is bias, I am proud to be biased.

Jonathan


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Neeves said:


> I confess to bias, thank you Smackdaddy for pointing it out.
> 
> I dislike sloppy products that are potentially unsafe.
> 
> ...


As I just said, you have the freedom to type anything you want and list any anecdotal examples you'd like. And apparently there are organizations out there that will even publish it - regardless of merit.

But you've lost all professional credibility in my book. So none of it matters.

You're in Brent Swain land now.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

If the author is proven to biased, I do question why PS permitted the study to be published. IMO, PS does have better cred than Mantus, at least up until now.

However, we still don't know if the proper size Mantus hook will prematurely break a chain, because despite the noted flaws, Mantus apparently never tested it either.

Further, I hope Mantus is also testing the scenario published by PS. If a an undersized hook does, in fact, have that kind of impact on chain strength, it should be a serious warning. Mismatching a size that still fits in the hook is not an inconceivable possibility. Companies have lost suits because their coffee is too hot. Putting a small hook on a bigger chain would be a lot less intuitive.

It wasn't clear in Greg's reply to me, whether he was suggesting they tested their laterally shank strength as a result of a debate here. However, it is appearing to me that Mantus may not be doing the testing it should have before going to market. Passing after the fact is better than not passing at all, but if they weren't doing appropriate testing, it says something about their due diligence.

I don't wish Mantus any ill will, but I am frustrated by first receiving a poor quality product (galvanized hook), then finding there is salient information they didn't share.


----------



## Mantus Anchors (Dec 13, 2011)

I confess to bias, thank you Smackdaddy for pointing it out.

I dislike sloppy products that are potentially unsafe.

The Mantus anchor was initially sold with a mild steel shank, did they never hear of Rocna? When the defect was pointed out they continued to sell for 6 months when waiting for the new HT shanks.

I was sent FOC a 15kg anchor to test. It arrived with mild steel bolts, not the Class 8 bolts specified.

_We never specified Grade 8 bolts, and never used them. There is no such thing as mild steel bolts, there are Grade 2 bolts that we used to use (4 x 1/2 inch bolts for a shank/fluke joint on a 35 lbs anchor sent to Jonathan), we now use to Grade 5 bolts once we can source them hot dipped. Either fastener is acceptable for that Joint..
Mantus Anchors | The Anchor Bolts - Mantus Anchors
_

More recently someone has received a Mantus anchor where the bolts are too short, they do not fill the nuts (I think by one thread)

_True, I am sure there a few customers that might have sent the wrong parts to over the years, but if we did not take care of someone over the years I would definitely want to hear about it.
_

Greg suggested that the anchor will work perfectly without the roll bar, it doesn't, I tried it.

Mantus sell a stainless anchor, I'm not sure where they get Class 8 bolts for assembly, maybe they use bigger bolts.

_We use 316 bolts on our stainless steel anchors and have no plan on changing them for the foreseeable future and see no reason to do so. 
http://www.mantusanchors.com/anchor-bolts/
_

The roll bar has been shown to be prone to bending, this will not be an issue in sand but might be in coral and rock.

Greg seems to be now saying that the chain hook is safe if used with a correctly chosen snubber, the implication might be that otherwise safety may be compromised. There appears to be ambiguity here.

The hook was sold focussed at the G43 market. The market is now G30. Apart from a notification on the website I have not seen a clear and unambiguous statement on change of application on other forum or other medium.

I am happy to excuse an error, when it is corrected quickly and anyone impacted advised - but this is too long a list, its systemic. I am not aware of a similar catalogue by other manufacturers.

_No comment here, I think wee exhausted the topic and covered it in depth in the previous posts._

The only anecdotal comment is the one regarding the short bolt. I'm sure if I wanted I could obtain images.

If this is bias, I am proud to be biased.

Jonathan


----------



## Mantus Anchors (Dec 13, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> If the author is proven to biased, I do question why PS permitted the study to be published. IMO, PS does have better cred than Mantus, at least up until now.
> 
> However, we still don't know if the proper size Mantus hook will prematurely break a chain, because despite the noted flaws, Mantus apparently never tested it either.
> 
> ...


_Minnewaska, I am sorry you were not satisfied with quality of the part you received. We offer no questions asked returns or exchanges even if the item has been used, hope to take care of you better in the future._

greg


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Mantus Anchors said:


> _Minnewaska, I am sorry you were not satisfied with quality of the part you received. We offer no questions asked returns or exchanges even if the item has been used, hope to take care of you better in the future._
> 
> greg


Accepted. Thank you.

I may take you up on that, based upon seeing these new testing results. I presume you're testing both proper and undersized hooks on both HT and BBB chain. Despite being undersized, you do acknowledge they physically fit on larger chain.

To be a buyer of a Mantus Anchor for full time use, I would need to know that complete corrosion and destructive testing has been done, before hand. Crevice corrosion, as an example.


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Geez... If only I could buy a car that never rusts or breaks down, a plane that never corrodes or get parts fatigue, or a house whose roof never wears and the wood never needing paint... Wouldn't that be great? 

Mantus you have some really challenging days ahead. 

I'm amazed as the owner/manufacturer you are even on these forums defending your product! I wonder how many manufacturers like Harken or Lewmar come on forums to defend their product? Unheard of... Does Boeing or Airbus have VP's posting in forums to defend their product. Would never happen!

Greg... Thank you for doing so even if not required to do so.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

guitarguy56 said:


> I'm amazed as the owner/manufacturer you are even on these forums defending your product! I wonder how many manufacturers like Harken or Lewmar come on forums to defend their product? Unheard of... Does Boeing or Airbus have VP's posting in forums to defend their product. Would never happen


Exactly. I have talked to many vendors in the sail equipment world. Many talk about the no-nothing internet experts who are totally clueless and not worth engaging.
And sailnet is shrinking a lot, becoming less relevant every year. I think a large part of that irrelevence is because of the internet experts here that dominate every conversation. Its like going to a bar and sitting next to a loud-mouthed drunk. Pay your tab and move on.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> Accepted. Thank you.
> 
> I may take you up on that, based upon seeing these new testing results. I presume you're testing both proper and undersized hooks on both HT and BBB chain. Despite being undersized, you do acknowledge they physically fit on larger chain.
> 
> To be a buyer of a Mantus Anchor for full time use, I would need to know that complete corrosion and destructive testing has been done, before hand. Crevice corrosion, as an example.


For a guy who has already epxressed his own bias against Mantus - in this thread and elsewhere...



Minnewaska said:


> Honestly, I've always found Mantus to be suspect, so I'm kicking myself.


...and is now casting all kinds of unwarranted suspicion and demanding all kinds of information before you'll "be a buyer of a Mantus Anchor for tull time use"...

You're starting to sound a lot like Neeves.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> For a guy who has already epxressed his own bias against Mantus - in this thread and elsewhere...
> 
> ...and is now casting all kinds of unwarranted suspicion and demanding all kinds of information before you'll "be a buyer of a Mantus Anchor for tull time use"...
> 
> You're starting to sound a lot like Neeves.


Yes, my opinion is based on my direct experience in receiving a defective product from them. Their galvanized hook was very poorly made. Do they even sell them anymore?

Your bias just happens to be in favor that they can do no wrong.

Expecting a ground tackle company to have properly tested their product to failure is not the outrageous expectation you Mantus devotees are trying to suggest.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

guitarguy56 said:


> Geez... If only I could buy a car that never rusts or breaks down, a plane that never corrodes or get parts fatigue, or a house whose roof never wears and the wood never needing paint... Wouldn't that be great?......


Who suggested it should never fail? The issue is identifying when these will fail and that testing is done on each of your examples. Clearly, Mantus did not do this testing properly, but are doing it now.

In fact, auto manufacturers never gave a damn about crash testing their cars until the consumer. legislature, insurance companies effectively insisted upon it.

If you give a manufacturer a pass on failure testing, I assure you most willl take it.


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> Who suggested it should never fail? The issue is identifying when these will fail and that testing is done on each of your examples. Clearly, Mantus did not do this testing properly, but are doing it now.
> 
> In fact, auto manufacturers never gave a damn about crash testing their cars until the consumer. legislature, insurance companies effectively insisted upon it.
> 
> If you give a manufacturer a pass on failure testing, I assure you most willl take it.


I never mentioned 'fail' in my post... but if you think products you buy do not last a lifetime, corrode, or break down... then you're special... I'm sure Mantus has done this testing and I've seen it in their website... That is callous to indicate they haven't.

Crash testing cars does not validate parts that still break down or wear over time which is why you must replace these components during the 'lifetime' of the car... no reason why this is difficult to reason.

Manufacturers today (not yesteryear) do great strides in insuring product safety (at least in the U.S.) otherwise they understand TORT law and the consequences. To say they will pass on this testing or product safety means you know nothing about this industry.


----------



## uncle stinky bob (Feb 28, 2016)

Minnewaska said:


> Who suggested it should never fail? The issue is identifying when these will fail and that testing is done on each of your examples. Clearly, Mantus did not do this testing properly, but are doing it now.
> 
> In fact, auto manufacturers never gave a damn about crash testing their cars until the consumer. legislature, insurance companies effectively insisted upon it.
> 
> If you give a manufacturer a pass on failure testing, I assure you most willl take it.


I'm not trying to smartass you here, ok? You clearly have much more experience than me and are a wealth of great knowledge. But I don't think there is anyway possible to test a product like this and have any idea of when or if it will fail, way to many variables. I think I'm correct in assuming it's the bridle/snubber that does the work of limiting undue stress on the hook, among other components. If the snubber was a standardized piece of gear, tested to it limits, as the hook is, it still would not be able to account for all the other variables. I'm new to all of this really. I'm trying to decide how to anchor my boat and with what, reading everyones opinions here has more than confused that issue for me. Many here flat say they don't and won't run a long snubber, despite that being the manufactures recommendations. So really the fail started the moment the hook was bought and rigged to that short snubber. I value all the opinions of the seasoned salt's here but half the time topics like this leave me as uninformed as when it started. I'm single handing, the idea of coming off the hook while sleeping is rather disturbing, so I'm going overkill, but I'm doing that to all my gear as it's replaced. Anyway, I do appreciate all you guys here.......but sure wish you could agree on something! HA HA HA, like that'l happen, right? 
Fair Winds!


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

you folks are sincerely overthinking your ****. just grab a line, preferably 3 strand, mebbe 1/2 inch, and place one end on a cleat via a hawse. 
wrap the middle around the chain as a rolling hitch. then thread the other end of line thru a hawse and cleat off. ta daa. no muss no fuss no bludi hook to undo itself in a bumpy heavy chop. it is also very easy to remove--haul anchor, as you stow that chain and anchor, undo the rolling hitch and stow line. if you can wash both chain and line before stowing, you wont gross self out on dead fish smell later. 
vinegar helps that. also works against rusting the galvanized chain as quickly as non vinegared chain. 
i pour vinegar into my anchor locker after washing and 
stowing chain. no stink nada


----------



## uncle stinky bob (Feb 28, 2016)

zeehag said:


> you folks are sincerely overthinking your ****. just grab a line, preferably 3 strand, mebbe 1/2 inch, and place one end on a cleat via a hawse.
> wrap the middle around the chain as a rolling hitch. then thread the other end of line thru a hawse and cleat off. ta daa. no muss no fuss no bludi hook to undo itself in a bumpy heavy chop. it is also very easy to remove--haul anchor, as you stow that chain and anchor, undo the rolling hitch and stow line. if you can wash both chain and line before stowing, you wont gross self out on dead fish smell later.
> vinegar helps that. also works against rusting the galvanized chain as quickly as non vinegared chain.
> i pour vinegar into my anchor locker after washing and
> stowing chain. no stink nada


Surely this wouldn't work.......far to simple and NASA has not tested & approved it!!!! . 
Thanks dude!


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

uncle stinky bob said:


> Surely this wouldn't work.......far to simple and NASA has not tested & approved it!!!! .
> Thanks dude!


Zee is a woman and a gifted sailor and quite capable from what I've read in her posts.


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

Been following this thread with a mixture of amazement, amusement, astonishment and....well yes, at times anger.

I have two shiny new Mantus stainless steel anchor hooks. They are for 3/8" chain. They are massive. When I first read about Mantus hooks "cutting the chain" I thought to myself, "No Way Jose".

Now, after reading all the stuff here and after examining my hooks VERY closely....with eyeball, magnifying glass, and micrometer....and paying very close attention to how my 3/8" G43 Maggi chain is gripped by the Mantus hook, I'm still at the "No Way Jose" stage. There's just no way in hell this hook is going to "cut" this chain.

By the way, the interior of the hook where it grips the chain is not "sharp". Rather, it's a 5mm wide FLAT surface atop a sloped incline on both sides. Not exactly a cutting surface.

Is it possible that this hook could cause a chain to break at less than its rated breaking strength? Of course it is, just as ANY hook will do. Why?

First, we should NEVER be talking about breaking strength of chain. Nominally, this is supposed to be 3 or 4 times the working load rating (WLL) of the chain. However, WLL should NEVER BE EXCEEDED. And, *the WLL rating is only with new chain on which a straight-line pull is slowly increased.*

The WLL will be decreased whenever these two conditions are changed, i.e., whenever the load is not applied in a *straight line* and *slowly increased*. *Chain specifications clearly state that any side loading will decrease the WLL.*

Moveover, the bridle itself (I choose to call it a bridle rather than a "snubber" which in my mind is a little rubbery strap thingy) is supposed to take a lot of the loading off the chain, by virtue of being stretchy. Nylon is generally used, and not too big at that, since nylon line is VERY strong. So, between the long not-too thick nylon bridle and the catenary caused by the weight of the chain itself, actual loads on the chain at the chain hook are much reduced.

Given these factors, and that everything is sized correctly so that the WLL is never exceeded, there should be no question that the hook will hold and the chain itself will not be compromised.

Applying force necessary to bend the hook or cause the chain to break is not real world. It's a meaningless exercise. And, given the many, many factors involved it's a very misleading meaningless exercise. Don't think so? How about trying to predict both events (hook bending/breaking and chain breaking) in repeated trials?

Finally, the advice about never exceeding WLL is important because of the metalurgy involved. Somewhere between the WLL and chain failure is the problem of chain tensile strength and plasticity. Somewhere beyond the WLL, the chain will deform: elongate, twist, crack, etc. so that it is no longer in its original form AND IS NO LONGER SUITABLE FOR USE AS AN ANCHOR CHAIN. It might not even fit the gypsy on the windlass any longer.

I had a horrid experience last summer when a Derecheo hit my boat just as we came to anchor and before we were able to rig the bridles. We were hit with sustained hurricane force winds and violent seas which came from the starboard beam just after we'd let out about 100ft of 3/8" G40 chain and a Fortress FX-37 anchor.

This swung the boat around violently, the bow began plunging up and down....first about 3-4' then quickly about 6-7'....and caused the chain to destroy the s/s bow roller (see pic), to pull thru the rather massive Lewmar chain stop, and to actually bend the shaft of the Lewmar Concept 2 windlass, rendering it unusable and later declared toast.

I have no doubt that if I had been able to rig even a single bridle before the wind hit, none of this would have happened. My bad.

Got it all fixed: new Lewmar V5 windlass on s/s plate, 270' new 3/8" Maggi chain, new FX-37 Fortress anchor, two new 3/8" Mantus chain hooks and 1/2" nylon bridles, bow roller repaired like new, etc. Took boat to Maine where she and I will have a chance to try things out this summer. Second pic taken near Snow Island in Casco Bay.

I think I'm gonna love those Mantus Hooks, because I repeatedly had trouble with my old galvanized chain hooks dislodging at anchor in Maine toward the end of last summer, with the current and wind shifts. Surely, the Mantus hooks will stay put.

Bill


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

exactly. i aint a dude. 
i tried hooks. they were bullwhipped totally off my chain .. oops. 
SOOOO, no hooks. 

as for the guy with 2 beautiful chainhooks, ye can use em to suspend stuff from overheads, such as gear nets. 
yeah, overkill, but.....


----------



## Neeves (Mar 8, 2016)

To clarify,

The hooks do not cut the chain at the loading surfaces, though they can score the surface if the edge is not rounded. What happens is that the part of the chain on the loading surfaces bends (which might be a rounded surface or angular) and stretches the opposite side of the link, its the length of the link opposite that fails - because it is being preferentially stretched. 

So imagine one link sitting horizontal on a vertical knife edge (if you do not like that scenario - think of a link sitting on a tightly rounded surface, like most hooks in chandlers). Load the 2 crowns with the links on either side. The wire on the knife edge bends, or acting as a tangent to the round (both are point loaded) - the piece of the link opposite is now loaded unevenly. 

Claw hooks retain the crown such that the whole crown is evenly supported. Any load on the retained link is on the crown, the same way the load is for the rest of the chain. A cradle hook supports the whole of the length of the link, so again only the crown is loaded. The lifting industry makes particular mention that you must match chain size to hook size. They also colour code most of their devices so that all G80 are one colours, G100 another colour etc, slings enjoy the same colour coding. Most, but not all, manufacturers emphasise that certain hooks will degrade strength. It is almost impossible to use the wrong size chain in a rated lifting hook, the hooks are designed to only take one size of chain.

Most marine chain hooks have no warnings at all (actually I've seen none). Many hooks have a WLL, but no indication what safety factor is being used. As we have seen we have no idea what that safety factor refers to, based on the hook actually snapping, or based on bending such that the chain might fall out. Because hooks are sold and the manufacturer has no control over how they are used, and historically has offered no recommendation on how they should (or must) be used, safety factors should be high. The PS test was not worst case scenario - but indicative.

Not all chain is the same. American chain tends to have a small, 12% is not unusual, elongation to break. Australian chain can stretch as much as 40%. American chain is often outside the voluntary limits set by the industry, Australian chain meets specifications. The smallest metric chain is 6mm and has a short link, the smallest imperial chain is 1/4" (quite a bit bigger than 6mm) with a longer link (in fact the link length varies dependent on BBB, G3, G43). If hooks are sold internationally they need to meet these variables and then cater for the idea that an owner might use a bigger or smaller chain than that envisaged or an old chain (I know of one owner who has had his chain regalvanised 3 times).

Jonathan


----------



## uncle stinky bob (Feb 28, 2016)

zeehag said:


> exactly. i aint a dude.
> i tried hooks. they were bullwhipped totally off my chain .. oops.
> SOOOO, no hooks.
> 
> ...


Ops, sorry about that, no insult intended. I was attempting sarcasm, didn't pull it off I guess. I was admiring the straight forward simplistic method you use. I new here and to sailing for the most part, trying to learn. I love simple, less is more, kind of thing I guess. Anyway, hope I'm forgiven, I would never intentionally insult a Lady.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> Your bias just happens to be in favor that they can do no wrong.


No - that's not right. My position is and has been to simply be objective, factual, and fair in whatever analysis or critique is being applied.

Bias, unreasonable expectations, and misleading information is not that.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

*A Warning re. Gripper Hitches*

I must add that during load testing some knots frequently creeped off at high load, and after some interviews, found I was not the only person to have experienced this. Not to name drop, but you would recognize a number of well-know high latitude an circumnavigating sailors from my interview list. I'm sure the specific chain, rope, and condition matter, so it is possible to miss this.

The offending knot was the rolling hitch. Normally it failed above setting pressure but below storm pressure making it a sneaky problem. It could be weak for years and you would never notice. I'm sure it works for some people, and I am also sure that they slip for some people. I will be publishing the whole result in PS, but I will share that the *rolling hitch failed at about 15% of rope BS (8% chain BS) on most trials.*

What did work? Prusik hitch (I used this in much of the snubber high-load testing, as well as cruising) camel hitch, double rolling hitches, and a few others. If you are using a rolling hitch, seriously consider switching to a Camel hitch. It is practically identical, only 2 seconds slower, and far more secure. One turn is reversed and a half hitch locks it. Yes, you can lock a rolling hitch with half hitches, but they can really jam that way, so don't. The stopper knot on the end is also a good idea, particularly with the rolling hitch.

(The photo is on rope--I'm discussing chain, this was just a handy photo. In fact, these hitches are hard to recongnize after loading on chain because the links move around.









Camel Hitch - Knots Guide | Arbtalk.co.uk

I invite anyone that would like to contribute to pull-test gripper knots and post what they learn. Nothing proprietary here.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Neeves said:


> To clarify,
> 
> The hooks do not cut the chain at the loading surfaces, though they can score the surface if the edge is not rounded. What happens is that the part of the chain on the loading surfaces bends (which might be a rounded surface or angular) and stretches the opposite side of the link, its the length of the link opposite that fails - because it is being preferentially stretched.
> 
> ...


You know these things, yet you can't do this in your test?

See btray's first-hand experience with this particular hook above (it's features don't fit what you're describing here) - and his take on the underlying illogic of your work. He's right.

Your test was meaningless. PS should have never published it.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

How often does the 'lifting industry' use a shock-absorbing elastic rope as part of the lift?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> No - that's not right. My position is and has been to simply be objective, factual, and fair in whatever analysis or critique is being applied.
> 
> Bias, unreasonable expectations, and misleading information is not that.


objective, factual and fair.......

No one knows the impact of a Mantus hook on properly sized chain, because not even Mantus had checked. They just sent these out this past week or so and results are either not back, or published. They've acknowledged this on their website.

There is one published test that shows an undersized hook will decrease chain strength by 42%. Mantus hadn't tested that either.

Oversized chain actually fits in the under sized hook. A user should be informed of the hook's impact on this scenario. You can't deflect liability by saying the coffee was designed to be in your mouth, not your lap. The larger chain fit.

Maybe these new tests will come back, within spec, but it's too late to say this manufacturer was good enough to think of them beforehand.

Are these factual?


----------



## jcapo (Jul 17, 2000)

I've been using long soft shackles attacked to the chain with a Prusik knot for years now. Been through some nasty blows on the west side of the Jumentos and Highborne with miles of open fetch with no slipping and no damage to the soft shackle.

Those Johnson hooks will deform and slip the chain at waaaay less than chain working load. I was surprised how easy it was to bend the prongs back into alignment with a pair of pliers.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

guitarguy56 said:


> I never mentioned 'fail' in my post... but if you think products you buy do not last a lifetime, corrode, or break down... then you're special... I'm sure Mantus has done this testing and I've seen it in their website... That is callous to indicate they haven't.


Are you really splitting hairs between the term fail and break down? That's not credible.

As for being callous by suggesting Mantus hasn't tested, you're not paying close attention. There own website acknowledges they did not test with chain and it's only now in process. Read it here.

Mantus Anchors | Mantus Chain Hooks: Load testing data revised - Mantus Anchors



> .....Independent tests by SGS using chain are in the works and will be published as soon as they are available.


In fact, if you'll read post #67, you'll see what they originally said, which did not even indicate that the new tests were underway.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/3378441-post67.html

Since, you've "seen it on their website" do you care to link it here?



> Crash testing cars does not validate parts that still break down or wear over time which is why you must replace these components during the 'lifetime' of the car... no reason why this is difficult to reason.
> 
> Manufacturers today (not yesteryear) do great strides in insuring product safety (at least in the U.S.) otherwise they understand TORT law and the consequences. To say they will pass on this testing or product safety means you know nothing about this industry.


This is incoherent.

I think you're trying to respond to my reference that auto makers never did testing until pressured to do so. The type of testing wasn't the point.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

jcapo said:


> I've been using long soft shackles attacked to the chain with a Prusik knot for years now. Been through some nasty blows on the west side of the Jumentos and Highborne with miles of open fetch with no slipping and no damage to the soft shackle.
> 
> Those Johnson hooks will deform and slip the chain at waaaay less than chain working load. I was surprised how easy it was to bend the prongs back into alignment with a pair of pliers.


Why would you need to connect a soft shackle with a prusik hitch? Why not just put the shackle through a chain link?

What is a Johnson hook? I didn't see that mentioned in the thread, but it may be a generic term I'm unfamiliar with for one of the hooks mentioned.

Mark


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> Are you really splitting hairs between the term fail and break down? That's not credible.
> 
> As for being callous by suggesting Mantus hasn't tested, you're not paying close attention. There own website acknowledges they did not test with chain and it's only now in process. Read it here.
> 
> ...


The only thing incoherent here are your posts... First you indicate you're not happy after you read the PS report but you were fine with the anchor, then you're not happy with the hook although it was fine before the PS article? Now you're not happy with the anchor and corrosion issues... which will then evolve around the bolts not being of a particular grade (like you're a stress analyst to understand the difference)... So next will be the surface finish being /32 finish is not /64 finish, etc. as if this really matters when that anchor is rubbing and scraping along the bottom consisting of rocks, coral, and god knows what... but it matters what you think it should be?

Yes you are incoherent and I would understand why Mantus would not answer your posts or grow weary of you... Frankly if I were Mantus... I'd return your money, return the anchor/hook back to Mantus and be done with you... You are not a happy Mantus purchaser and should be made whole... but you continue to rant on this thread with your delusional unhappy state... regardless of the updated testing Mantus has done you will not be satisfied. Yes they have done testing whether with the chain or on a test rig... the testing was done.

And Yes crashing a car into a wall does not imply parts will not fail or deteriorate over time... Yet it was you who made that 'crashing the car' comment right?



> You can't deflect liability by saying the coffee was designed to be in your mouth, not your lap.


Ha ha ha... LOL... Really Minnie?


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

Exactly what is wrong with America, that someone could sue McDx because the coffee was hot and have suppprt for it.


----------



## Neeves (Mar 8, 2016)

As there is some objectivity developing and as it is one link in the chain that sits in the hook I further add:

G30 chain comes in many 'qualities'.

Recently tested American chain is superbly strong, well above specification. It would appear, for whatever reason, the wire used to make the chain is about 390 MPa, almost the min for a metric G40 and a bit lower than the minimum for imperial G43. Australian chain is not quite so strong it appears to be made from a wire of 340-370 MPa, still well above the min required. Tests of Chinese chain are very similar to that made in America, a similar 390 MPa feedstock, though exceptionally some Chinese chain looks to be made from a 320 MPa feed. Most Chinese chain is unbranded and unmarked but CMP (of Rocna fame) make G30 chain under their Titan brand it is exceptionally strong, as good as American chain. Maggi do not make a G30. Most European manufacturers have stopped producing G30 and either import direct themselves from China of buy through big importers, like Plastimo. The minimum specification for the G30 wire (and some chain may be made to the minimum strength) is 300 MPa. These are recent results, over the last 2-4 years - what happened 10 years ago, we do not know because no-one was doing independent testing then (maybe no-one offered encouragement). 

I think it would be fair to assume that there is some chain in use to today that was made from a near min spec wire and that this same chain is now worn (maybe taking wire strength down toward 270 MPa??). The rule of thumb for chain retirement is 10% loss of wire diameter - I have never worked out what that means in terms of loss of strength - but its more than 10%.

Edit, Another unknown is why we are lucky to have such good chain currently - and will it last. Chain makers may decide, be forced economically, to return to something nearer the minimum specification. Its not something we can legitimately complain of - we might simply be lucky to have a glut of cheap steel, over strength for our application today - which may disappear next year. We need to consider the minimum - not what we have today. close edit.

So to test a hook with current American chain will be invaluable but it will not suit anyone marketing internationally (where chain strengths might be weaker), will not cover older chain (that might have been made from a weaker feedstock and might well be worn). 

If anyone wonders why I used weaker chain - you might get an inkling. I looked at a bad scenario, possibly not worst case. If you want PS to look only at the ideal - the comments supporting an ideal world have been noted. To me a device that does not destroy product (chain) in use today (that might not be still be in its flush of youth and strength and might have been overtaken in terms of quality) means that a newer product (chain) is going to be inherently safer. 

xort - the discussion is about use of chain hooks on a short snubber, no elasticity. There are hooks for tape and cordage used regularly in the lifting industry. But elasticity is not part of the discussion.

Jonathan


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> No one knows the impact of a Mantus hook on properly sized chain, because not even Mantus had checked.


What are you talking about? There are thousands of these things out there being used every day. Even our own PDQ tested this thing with extensive use on properly sized chain. And he recommended it on PS.



> When we reviewed the Mantus Chain Hook (see PS December 2013), we found a lot to like, but testers criticized the hook's tendency to come off the chain in some conditions, particularly when the chain was lying on the bottom in calm conditions. Mantus went back to the drawing board with the hook, and provided us with their newly designed injection molded latch retrofit to test.
> 
> A simple bit of engineered plastic, the new latch is easily snapped into place with the thumb and retracted just as easily, retaining the hook's simple one-hand action we liked. *We've tested it though 1,000 cycles (our thumbs are tired) and saw little wear. We also tried it out during many dozens of anchoring cycles over eight months, purposely letting it rest on all sorts of sea bottoms.* Not a single time did the hook come undone as it had before the retrofit. We like the new latch, and now can recommend the hook.


Where exactly is _your_ report of a "cut" or broken chain in real-world use? Are you saying you have that evidence? If you don't have it then you're just trying to stamp your feet and demand proof of a unicorn. When's the last time you checked your unicorn?



Minnewaska said:


> There is one published test that shows an undersized hook will decrease chain strength by 42%. Mantus hadn't tested that either.


No that test proved nothing of the sort. The hook was the wrong size for the chain (clearly) - errantly increasing the point loading. And the chain was already used! Therefore, those numbers are completely bogus - because the test was completely flawed. Yet _you_ still use these numbers as gospel. See the problem with what PS allowed to happen? Gullible people can't tell the difference.



Minnewaska said:


> Oversized chain actually fits in the under sized hook. A user should be informed of the hook's impact on this scenario.


I'll assume you're joking. Because this is ridiculous.



Minnewaska said:


> Are these factual?


The fact is - you're desperately reaching.


----------



## Neeves (Mar 8, 2016)

colemj said:


> Why would you need to connect a soft shackle with a prusik hitch? Why not just put the shackle through a chain link?
> 
> What is a Johnson hook? I didn't see that mentioned in the thread, but it may be a generic term I'm unfamiliar with for one of the hooks mentioned.
> 
> Mark


I find that with metric chain, even 8mm, has too small a hole to get the soft shackle through. I've not tried 6mm metric (for obvious reasons). I'd guess that 1/4" imperial is not easy either. Imperial links are 'bigger' than metric.

Jonathan


----------



## uncle stinky bob (Feb 28, 2016)

colemj said:


> Why would you need to connect a soft shackle with a prusik hitch? Why not just put the shackle through a chain link?
> 
> What is a Johnson hook? I didn't see that mentioned in the thread, but it may be a generic term I'm unfamiliar with for one of the hooks mentioned.
> 
> Mark


 a Johnson hook


----------



## uncle stinky bob (Feb 28, 2016)

Several other's I have found.


----------



## Neeves (Mar 8, 2016)

uncle stinky bob said:


> Several other's I have found.


The righthand side one, the sort of bent shackle, I recall is made by Witchard. It really needs 2 hands to apply and detach.

jcapo's comments on the Johnson hook are not unusual I didn't know it is a 'Johnson' hook either!

Jonathan


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> What are you talking about? There are thousands of these things out there being used every day. Even our own PDQ tested this thing with extensive use on properly sized chain. And he recommended it on PS.


You know I'm talking about testing the Mantus did. All they did was put it in a clamp and pull on it. They sold it, even to PDQ, without properly testing it. It's a simply fact. They've admitted it. They are only now updating their own published failure data.



> Where exactly is _your_ report of a "cut" or broken chain in real-world use? Are you saying you have that evidence? If you don't have it then you're just trying to stamp your feet and demand proof of a unicorn. When's the last time you checked your unicorn?


I posted simple facts, you insert unicorns. You just try to come up with a way to get personal.

I never said I cut through a chain, nor that anyone has in real-world. How many of these could possibly be out there anyway? That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Mantus never checked on when their hooks would cause chain failure.

You can stomp your feet all you like, demanding that no one point out this inconvenient fact. But too bad. It's a fact.



> No that test proved nothing of the sort. The hook was the wrong size for the chain (clearly) - errantly increasing the point loading. And the chain was already used! Therefore, those numbers are completely bogus - because the test was completely flawed. Yet _you_ still use these numbers as gospel. See the problem with what PS allowed to happen? Gullible people can't tell the difference.


Until another study proves otherwise, and I've said I'm open to seeing one, that test showed that an undersized hook causes used chain to fail at 42% of its breaking strength.

The larger chain physically fits in the hook and, therefore, there is no doubt could be used that way.



> I'll assume you're joking. Because this is ridiculous.


Statement like this are when I know I'm running you out of any rational retort.

I am not joking. The larger chain physically fits in the smaller hook. If it did not, it would be silly to care what impact the hook might have on the larger chain. But it does fit. It is entirely conceivable that someone will use it that way. Imagine having the smaller hook and larger chain and having never read any of this. The rational person would assume the smaller hook would fail, not the larger chain, which would not cast them adrift.

If that's a third rail type of problem, it should be noted as such. If it's not, prove it. All that is noted is the proper size chain for the hook, no warning over other sizes that may actually fit. Of course, that's because Mantus has no data on any of these scenarios. Yet. That's a fact.



> The fact is - you're desperately reaching.


The fact is, you love these guys, I'm pretty sure they are in your home town and you've decided to defend them. That's as much your right as it is the consumer's to demand that they prove their product has been properly tested.

Here's the bottom line. I've asked to see product testing data from the manufacturer, on the heals of publicly available data that some don't like. It's revealed that Mantus never did their own testing with chain, until just now. You can rant and defend all you like, it doesn't bother me. But I'll respond to every one, if you're just criticizing my point of view.

So get it into your marketing head, you're just prolonging the negative exposure on this one, like you've done to other products.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

guitarguy56 said:


> The only thing incoherent here are your posts...


Listen, I get it. You don't like my point of view on this, but until you post some quotes of mine that back up your specific accusations, you don't make enough sense to have this discussion.



> First you indicate you're not happy after you read the PS report but you were fine with the anchor, then you're not happy with the hook although it was fine before the PS article?


Start here, if you're at all interested. BTW, I don't really care, if you do.

Never said I was fine with the anchor, in fact, I've question crevice corrosion since it came on the market. Never said I was fine with the hook prior to the PS article. In fact, I said I had to return the first one I received due to poor manufacturing. I bought both of them, without any knowledge of this chain strength issue (because Mantus never mentioned it, because they never tested it)

You've made it clear, you don't like my posts. That's your right. Just try to back up your points with quotes/links and not invent what I said.


----------



## eko_eko (Sep 7, 2012)

xort said:


> Exactly what is wrong with America, that someone could sue McDx because the coffee was hot and have suppprt for it.


I know the case sounds silly, but there's a reason the verdict came out the way it did (80/20 responsibility split). The news reports emphasized the silliness and left out the details that would have reduced the sensationalism of the story. For example, did you hear she was driving a car at the time? She wasn't.

New York Times: Scalded by Coffee, Then News Media


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> Listen, I get it. You don't like my point of view on this, but until you post some quotes of mine that back up your specific accusations, you don't make enough sense to have this discussion.


This is a silly statement.



> Start here, if you're at all interested. BTW, I don't really care, if you do.
> 
> Never said I was fine with the anchor, in fact, I've question crevice corrosion since it came on the market. Never said I was fine with the hook prior to the PS article. In fact, I said I had to return the first one I received due to poor manufacturing. I bought both of them, without any knowledge of this chain strength issue (because Mantus never mentioned it, because they never tested it)


First the anchor you brought is a 316 SS material... from my humble knowledge which to you is incoherent... the 316 stainless steels are used widely in marine applications, but their corrosion resistance in contact with seawater is limited. They cannot be considered 'corrosion proof' under all situations. These grades are susceptible to crevice and pitting corrosion, which limits there use in seawater applications.

Now unless Mantus and other anchor manufacturers are producing products with other types of stainless steels please inform us incoherent types. 


> You've made it clear, you don't like my posts. That's your right. Just try to back up your points with quotes/links and not invent what I said.


YES you couldn't have said it better... most of your posts are like broken records... sometimes step back and relax a bit... Spring is coming and you can try out your Mantus anchor and new hook... do some of your own testing... see if that hook breaks and the anchor is still in one piece.


----------



## Shockwave (Feb 4, 2014)

I wonder why Mantus doesn't cast the chain size on the hook? Metric one side, imperial the other, simple enough to do, especially if the want the hook to match the chain. I also wonder what the alloy and heat treat are, other then the 316l. 

It looks like Mantus tested the hook strength as if it were a coupon rather then as it lives in the real world. Good to hear it's being tested as PS tested it and good to hear they are making snubber recommendations.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

pdqaltair said:


> *A Warning re. Gripper Hitches*
> 
> I must add that during load testing some knots frequently creeped off at high load, and after some interviews, found I was not the only person to have experienced this. Not to name drop, but you would recognize a number of well-know high latitude an circumnavigating sailors from my interview list. I'm sure the specific chain, rope, and condition matter, so it is possible to miss this.
> 
> ...


it seems you are testing on mixed rode. we use all chain here to keep our boats, as we appreciate the chafe damage and speed at which chafe happens--many times within 4 hours time. 
to keep your boat, seriously, especially in an anchorage requiring snubbing, do use all chain rode. you will find much better results, like, you will still have a boat where you placed it when ye come home from food shopping.
what i found with rolling hitches on proper rode, ie, 100 percent chain, is the knot affixes around the chain so tightly that one must pull the anchor and then work on that knot at the next anchorage or while under way. i personally have had to add to the snubber lines due to chafe. when i am done, i have the old line under the new one. 
generally, folks donot anchor long enough in one place to require replacement of the snubber line.
in some bumpy anchorages, one needs check the snubber line daily and even more often, for chafe and twist. in all probability, anchorages will have tidal influence as well as wind.
:cut_out_animated_em


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Neeves said:


> I find that with metric chain, even 8mm, has too small a hole to get the soft shackle through. I've not tried 6mm metric (for obvious reasons). I'd guess that 1/4" imperial is not easy either. Imperial links are 'bigger' than metric.
> 
> Jonathan


3/16 amsteel is good for 2400kg. That will easily fit through 8mm g43 chain, and is way over its wll. 1/8" amsteel has the same wll as 6mm g43.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

uncle stinky bob said:


> a Johnson hook


Thanks. I'm familiar with those, but always called them claw hooks. Now I have a new word, but don't want to ask people if I can see their Johnson...

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

zeehag said:


> it seems you are testing on mixed rode. we use all chain here to keep our boats, as we appreciate the chafe damage and speed at which chafe happens--many times within 4 hours time.
> to keep your boat, seriously, especially in an anchorage requiring snubbing, do use all chain rode. you will find much better results, like, you will still have a boat where you placed it when ye come home from food shopping.
> what i found with rolling hitches on proper rode, ie, 100 percent chain, is the knot affixes around the chain so tightly that one must pull the anchor and then work on that knot at the next anchorage or while under way. i personally have had to add to the snubber lines due to chafe. when i am done, i have the old line under the new one.
> generally, folks donot anchor long enough in one place to require replacement of the snubber line.
> ...


I didn't see anything about mixed rode in the post. He was specifically talking about attaching a snubber to chain.

In fact, good anchoring practice should have everyone using, in effect, a somewhat mixed rode because the snubber should constitute a percentage of the rode. This percentage should increase significantly as the depth decreases.

For example, last night we were anchored in 4.5' of water with 30kt winds. Our bridle made up 50% of our rode, and contributed probably 80% of its effectiveness.

In deep water, people get by on catenary and little to no snubber, but that is a sucker bet imo.

Mark


----------



## uncle stinky bob (Feb 28, 2016)

Neeves said:


> The righthand side one, the sort of bent shackle, I recall is made by Witchard. It really needs 2 hands to apply and detach.
> 
> jcapo's comments on the Johnson hook are not unusual I didn't know it is a 'Johnson' hook either!
> 
> Jonathan


you are correct. That Witchards just looks like a pain, and I would want to keep the pin attached with cordage I would think, I know that I would end up dropping it overboard. I really don't "think" any of these look all that strong, especially after this thread on what I consider very strong hooks. But as many have said, it has not been prove that it has been the hook that failed but perhaps bad chain or end user not using properly sized chain, I.E. operator error.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

guitarguy56 said:


> ...First the anchor you brought is a 316 SS material... from my humble knowledge which to you is incoherent... the 316 stainless steels are used widely in marine applications, but their corrosion resistance in contact with seawater is limited. They cannot be considered 'corrosion proof' under all situations. These grades are susceptible to crevice and pitting corrosion, which limits there use in seawater applications.


So, you're saying.......



> First the anchor you brought is a 316 SS material


Then followed with.....



> the 316 stainless steels are used widely in marine applications, but their corrosion resistance in contact with seawater is limited


then.....



> These grades are susceptible to crevice and pitting corrosion


So you fully agree with my concern that the Mantus SS anchor is likely subject to crevice corrosion.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

zeehag said:


> it seems you are testing on mixed rode.


No, I never said that and I am ONLY discussing all-chain rodes. In fact, there is a notation right above the photo to make that clear.

I am talking about rolling hitches slipping on chain. It surprised me too, I wanted it to hold since I have used a rolling hitch, but I repeated the tests dozens of times. Seems like it holds, but when the load creeps up it slips. I tested BBB, proof coil, and G43 (same dimensions as G70).

I am not the only person to find this. I'm sure there are variables, some ropes that hold better than others, but this is a relatively common problem.

----

Please, someone set up a test rig, repeat and post. I am only reporting my findings. I did not test every combination.


----------



## uncle stinky bob (Feb 28, 2016)

I would like to know, has anyone, anywhere, reported failure of the Mantus hook...........well while on the hook? any insurance claim's? and while on the hook per the manufacturers recommended procedure.


----------



## Shockwave (Feb 4, 2014)

You would never know if there was a failure, these things are kept quiet. A large company that makes moorings had a bad batch of rings, when our boat broke free it was damaged to the tune of a $70k paint and glass job. It's kept quiet.


----------



## Neeves (Mar 8, 2016)

Shockwave said:


> You would never know if there was a failure, these things are kept quiet. A large company that makes moorings had a bad batch of rings, when our boat broke free it was damaged to the tune of a $70k paint and glass job. It's kept quiet.


Too true.

I know of a chain failure, the weld failed. Made by a reputable continental European maker (not Maggi) and since bought out by one of the big lifting chain suppliers. They accepted full responsibility and quietly replaced the chain. The worry is that this was a few 10's of metres from a much larger batch, batches can be 3t. There was never a recall - but that is quite common.

The internet has opened a new way to document failure but the reality is not many contribute to sites like this.

I wonder why?

I noted earlier that a member complained of the 'quality' of the site - I'm very new here, I would not voluntarily contribute (about which many will be pleased).

However its not the failure of the hook that is in question, that's a complaint to the manufacturer and simply a $30 replacement issue (probably of a hook from a different supplier). Damaging you chain might go unnoticed until some other stressful event occurs - and then, in the absence of reading PS, the finger will be pointed straight at the chain maker.

If a snubber hook, or the snubber, fails - its an inconvenience. Hooks fall off all the time. You don't need to even carry a spare - most people could cobble together a bit of rope and hitch the snubber back onto the rode.

I checked on a site that has slightly less acrimony and a great desire to learn - snubber hooks do bend. You need to consider the stress that is necessary to bend a hook - that same stress is imposed on one link. If the hook bends - what do you think is happening at the link. Might not matter with G43 chain, yield might be much higher than the yield point of the hook. G30, maybe old G43 - different story.

Many think this is a focus at putting a knife into Mantus, which makes me think they are blinded by some other motivation. Mantus, or their agent, happened to have sent me a hook to test. The results were unexpected. But if the hook bends the link might also be damaged - but no-one makes that connection (least of all the hook makers and least of all some people on this thread). I'd have to say - wake up. There are cheap and safe alternatives - you do not need to buy a hook that has not been tested 'correctly', or not tested at all. You can buy a hook that is recognised not to cause any, I stress the any, strength degardation.

By all means denigrate the people posting on the site, by all means be provocative. Hopefully some people are ignoring the rhetoric and abuse and derive some real benefit.

The Mantus hook, in common with most hooks, has the chain size embossed into the hook. Sizes for snubber hooks are commonly imperial. Many people here in Australia (and in the world outside America) have no idea what one inch looks like (I'm quite serious), they have maybe less idea of a foot or a yard and have never heard of a fathom. Let's not go into pounds, short tons and horsepower. This is not a unique issue - I was sent a 5/16" swivel to test - the manufacturer had not recognised that 5/16" imperial chain and 8mm metric chain are, very, different. The swivel did not fit 8mm chain. They have had to, are currently, changing to accommodate metric chain - PS was found very useful (but goes unacknowledged). I know - you would think this simple. it serves no purpose to say which manufacturer - they sent the swivel to be properly tested, full marks, it was found wanting, they are rectifying the issue.

Jonathan


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> So, you're saying.......
> 
> Then followed with.....
> 
> ...


No arguing with you there... You fully were aware of the material (316 SS) when you brought the Mantus or whatever anchor manufacturer since they will probably be in 316 SS if they are using the better materials.

I dare you to find another anchor in materials that are superior to 316 SS. Sure inert materials could be used like Monel or other precious metals but you probably couldn't afford it and the manufacturer probably would not have the capability to mass produce them economically.

So we're stuck with 316 SS and I'm sure Mantus as well as other anchor manufacturers sourced the right material and their engineers/metallurgists already did the initial inquiry into the bimetallic compatibility, crevice and stress corrosion cracking study, surface finish quality, etc. for this type of product.

Corrosion that is localized is often associated with chloride ions in aqueous environments and seawater will contain this... there is just no way going forward unless different materials are used. Same holds true for auto and aircraft industry only the anchors are in a harsher environment... we know this already as owners of marine boats/equipment.

Maybe adding some kind of coating to the anchor may help initially but this wears out very quickly with the dragging of the anchor in the seabed consisting of rocks, coral, and other aggregate materials, etc.


----------



## Neeves (Mar 8, 2016)

guitarguy56 said:


> No arguing with you there... You fully were aware of the material (316 SS) when you brought the Mantus or whatever anchor manufacturer since they will probably be in 316 SS if they are using the better materials.
> 
> I dare you to find another anchor in materials that are superior to 316 SS. Sure inert materials could be used like Monel or other precious metals but you probably couldn't afford it and the manufacturer probably would not have the capability to mass produce them economically.
> 
> ...


There is an alternative and that's duplex steel (318L?? - there are a number of specifications). Its used in Cromox chain and in G60 lifting components (chain, joining devices (hammerlocks for example)). Cromox against 316 stainless is not that expensive. At the back of my mind is the idea it, duplex, might have been used in some anchor shanks. One might think its available as bolts - but thinking about things and reality are different (as illustrated on this thread).

Anyone building an anchor from stainless 316 and suggesting it is the same as (as good as) their galvanised version is either using mild steel in the shank, of the gal version (and should be steered clear of), or is being economical with the truth. If the shank is thicker to accommodate the weaker steel, it will not perform so well, if its the same thickness as a higher tensile steel - it will not be so strong.

I would agree with the general comment that anyone who has investigated stainless steel would know of the down sides, the advantages and bought galvanised. However anyone selling stainless should be providing full information to their customers and not assume they are knowledgable.

Jonathan


----------



## uncle stinky bob (Feb 28, 2016)

Shockwave said:


> You would never know if there was a failure, these things are kept quiet. A large company that makes moorings had a bad batch of rings, when our boat broke free it was damaged to the tune of a $70k paint and glass job. It's kept quiet.


Respectfully disagree. There are so many public forums now, like this one that it would be broadcast...........well .......faster than all the buckets of bull that have been tossed about like this topic. And this one seems based on nothing more than what if's and maybe's that it's pointless, uninformative, nothing more than arguing. and as you've just proven, nothing is ever going to be kept quite for long, nothing.

So, has there been one shred of proof that a Mantus hook has ever failed and been proven to be the cause of even one boat being damaged? 
I don't own or use any Mantus product, yet.

I have yet to understand how anyone can say anything about this hook with all the other variables. It's a hook, how you rig it matter's, but nothing else in the snubber system is standardized. The one hook that seems (as far as I noticed) to be the cause of this was not even rigged to the properly sized chain.

If I buy a new car and the manufacturer say's 10w-50 engine oil only, and I say screw that, I like straight 5w in my car, and the engine blows, would this be a topic of how bad the car is? or what a complete mules ass I am?


----------



## Shockwave (Feb 4, 2014)

Well since, my boat and several others suffered upwards of a million dollars in damage by failed mooring rings in one afternoon and it wasn't "splashed" on the internet, I respectfully disagree. Some things are kept quiet as part of an agreement to make the injured parties whole.


----------



## uncle stinky bob (Feb 28, 2016)

Shockwave said:


> Well since, my boat and several others suffered upwards of a million dollars in damage by failed mooring rings in one afternoon and it wasn't "splashed" on the internet, I respectfully disagree. Some things are kept quiet as part of an agreement to make the injured parties whole.


and yet here you are talking about it. thanks for playing.


----------



## Neeves (Mar 8, 2016)

I included in an article I wrote an examination of a piece of equipment on a 3 or 4 year old yacht that was about half way through a circumnavigation. Not long after I was contacted by the owner as he was a bit miffed that on slipping his yacht it was identified to suffer from osmosis. He thought I might like to make some sort of article from his misfortune. He was persuaded by the boatbuilder that if he wanted to preserve the value of his yacht he might be better if he kept is mouth shut and they picked up the bill for the treatment. I heard no more about it. 

Jonathan


----------



## Someday (Jan 27, 2017)

So I got bored trying to read through page after page of blustering- cliffs notes anyone?

Are there any in-the-field experiences of a Mantus hook failing to perform?

I've been through north of 55 knots with an unknown sourced supposed 3/8 BBB chain hook and double braid (with fire hose anti chafe )snubber backed up by a separate rolling hitch (same setup) snubber. So far the primary has never failed to hold- though I do change out the snubber line once a year or so.

Mantus hook seems like a convenence- is there any factual evidence to say it isn't up to the task?


----------



## tgrimmett (Jan 16, 2001)

I've tried several chain hooks over the years but at the encouragement of a friend ditched them for the simple, reliable rolling hitch. Quick to tie and has never failed me. Once you start using a rolling hitch, you'll find other practical uses for it on your boat too. Rolling Hitch | How to tie the Rolling Hitch | Boating Knots


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

We have been using a soft shackle in lieu of our previous Mantus hook for the past few months and this is as simple and useful as it gets for connecting a bridle. Light, small, strong and comes up over the roller easily. 

Mark


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

i have a few chain hooks on board but my best holding and best serving bridle affixment to my chain has been a 3 strand line with rolling hitch centered on line , passing each end thru a hawse and secure to port and starboard bow cleats.
i have no problems weighing anchor with this in place.


----------



## wrwakefield (Nov 18, 2015)

Practical Sailor just published the results of retesting the Mantus chain hook. [Somewhat related, they also retested some shackles, resulting in adjusting their prior recommendations...]

The Mantus outcomes were different with chain matched with the hook size for the smaller Mantus chain hook. These results also prompted Mantus to revise [lower] their published workload ratings for at least some of their chain hooks.

There are more details in the copyrighted report by practical Sailor.

FYI Bill


----------



## lho (Jun 14, 2003)

Shockwave said:


> Rolling half hitches work fine to attach the snubber to the chain.


Amen !


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Someday said:


> ......cliffs notes anyone?.....


Sure thing......

1. My first Mantus hook was galvanized and very poor quality. Grind marks and flaking galvanization. I returned it.

2. My second Mantus hook is stainless and I hate it. It's too big, the plastic gate is a PITA and it won't fit through the bow roller.

3. The original Practical Sailor testing was flawed, but revealed an issue that this hook weakens the strength of the chain itself. Mantus' pushback did not addressed this issue. Rather, Mantus argues that by attaching a proper snubber, it would never put big loads on the chain in the first place and only tested how much load the hook itself can take. Don't you hate when someone doesn't actually answer the question that was asked?

4. Practical Sailor performs the test again, this time properly matching the chain and hook size, which they failed to do initially. They confirmed the hook does weaken the chain, but not as much as when the hook is too small for the chain. However, since the Mantus design does allow for an undersized hook to actually fit a larger chain, that's a serious design flaw IMO.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> 4. Practical Sailor performs the test again, this time properly matching the chain and hook size, which they failed to do initially. They confirmed the hook does weaken the chain, but not as much as when the hook is too small for the chain. However, since the Mantus design does allow for an undersized hook to actually fit a larger chain, that's a serious design flaw IMO.


It should be added that the lifting industry specifically designs hooks such that it is impossible to fit a mismatched chain. Mantus failed to do that, even though it is much less likely that their target customers (random sailors) even know about there could be a problem with chain size compared to the trained professionals in the lifting industry.

[Sailing is truly educational: Before reading about this, I did not even know there is something called the 'lifting industry']


----------



## IStream (Dec 15, 2013)

To be fair to Mantus, how many sailors have multiple sizes of chain they want to use with a given hook? I also credit them not only for revising their strength ratings down but also for their lengthy description of how they came up with their original ratings and why and how they downgraded them.

Disclaimer: I own a Mantus anchor and like it, but I paid full price for it and I have no financial interest in the company. I've posted my complaints about their anchor publicly before.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Just for reference:

* Have rolling hitches ever slipped? Yes. Several well-known and well-published cruisers no longer use them, because they have experienced slipping. I have pull-tested rolling hitches (multiple sizes) and found they slip at 20-40% of chain BS. If you have test data showing a rolling hitch holding more than 50% BS, please share it.

* Has there be a report of a Mantus Hook Failing or bending ion the field? No, and I don't really expect one. The Wichard hook is known to distort, but in equivalent sizes it is much weaker.

* Is there a commercially available, marine, locking hook that is as strong as the chain and does not weaken it? Not that I am aware of. Soft shackles and prusiks tied from Dyneema.

Seems like a lot of stone throwing at one guy, to me. The perfect hook does not yet exist, and you are all thus challenged to go out and build it. As for me, I have several solutions that I am happy with, all of them locking, all of them stronger than the snubber, a most of them as strong as the chain.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

pdqaltair said:


> The perfect hook does not yet exist, and you are all thus challenged to go out and build it.


As far as I'm concerned, I've done this - a soft shackle has been working perfectly doing all the things that were never quite right with the Wichard chain grip, the Mantus hook, carabiners, rolling hitches, open chain hooks, and a myriad of other things we have tried.

I can't see any downside - it is strong, it doesn't slip, it is easy to put on and take off, it allows the bridle to come up over the roller, it never distorts or binds, and my biggest fear of it chafing seems to be completely unfounded as we have been dragging it over sand, rubble and rocks and coral for the past 2 months and it looks like new.

Mark


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

colemj said:


> .....
> I can't see any downside -....


I don't either, other than maybe not having the convenience of slotting a specialized metal hook over a chain....and missing the lightening of your wallet.
No-brainer...
Plus, you can make them yourself, virtually free.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

colemj said:


> As far as I'm concerned, I've done this - a soft shackle has been working perfectly doing all the things that were never quite right with the Wichard chain grip, the Mantus hook, carabiners, rolling hitches, open chain hooks, and a myriad of other things we have tried.
> 
> I can't see any downside - it is strong, it doesn't slip, it is easy to put on and take off, it allows the bridle to come up over the roller, it never distorts or binds, and my biggest fear of it chafing seems to be completely unfounded as we have been dragging it over sand, rubble and rocks and coral for the past 2 months and it looks like new.
> 
> Mark


That is one I like.

It can be a little fiddly in the dark or with gloves when it's cold. Specific to my boat design, it is not convenient to bring the bridle over the rollers, and there is always some chance of damaging a snubber that is run side-by-side with the chain over rollers (it can be crushed and damaged internally, causing it to fail--there are known cases). However, if I were to recover the snubber over the rollers, it is certainly the best alternative at this time, IMHO.


----------



## Someday (Jan 27, 2017)

Good to know on the soft shackles- I have been slow to adopt.

Mainly because I think the commercial ones are overpriced, and I'm too lazy and easily distracted to splice anything other than 3 strand. I suppose I should get off the fence one way or the other.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The one argument I don't buy is the lack of failure in the field. Mine will never fail, because I don't use it. The field data set is too small, particularly when it needs to be exposed to extreme conditions to be an issue. The issue isn't failure of the hook, it's damage to the chain and the principal that the manufacturer doesn't/didn't test their products very well. 

How many snubbers have you seen that don't even extend past the bow roller, as they were installed only to take the load off a windlass. Neither of my Mantus hooks came with anything that talked about a proper snubber being necessary to alleviate the impact it may have on chain strength. Just chain damage would be bad enough, the chain doesn't have to be broken.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

If the hooks are damaging so many chains why don't we hear of chain failures? And I don't consider a 15 year old rusty chain that breaks a failure of the chain, I consider that a failure of the boater.

I bet the best chain hook is a battery, but what type of battery is the real question.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

pdqaltair said:


> It can be a little fiddly ... with gloves when it's cold.


Ewww. Just Ewww. Plus I don't believe it - it was 70F here the other morning and, while we were panicking about the cold, I had no problem getting the shackle off the chain.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Someday said:


> I'm too lazy and easily distracted to splice anything other than 3 strand.


You can make 3 soft shackles in the time it takes to make one 3-strand splice. All you do is pull one end through the body and tie a knot.

Mark


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Don0190 said:


> If the hooks are damaging so many chains why don't we hear of chain failures?


One possibility is that there are very few Mantus hooks in the world? (BTW I own one of them)

And of course a chain may be severely weakened by a hook in a storm but break much later. How would anyone connect the two events? It would not even be clear which specific link the hook was attached to during the earlier event.

Any substantial weakening of the chain is a serious concern and simply should not happen, given that there are solutions that avoid that. Like correctly designed hooks that do not allow using mismatched chain, perhaps knots or soft shackles.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

We used the Mantus hook for two years hated it, but the reasons were that it is huge, cumbersome and the plastic gate thing is not at all well thought out or built (we have snapped two of them, and wrestling with it is a pain).

However, the one thing that I never worried about is that hook failing or causing chain damage. I understand that the testing shows that it can fail and it can cause chain damage, but the reality of that situation is an extremely rare event. If conditions are reached where any damage could occur, you will be going over your entire anchor gear with a magnifying glass looking for failures regardless. 

In other words, that hook isn't going to be a problem in anything less than hurricane winds or 12' seas - after which you will probably be replacing pulled cleats, broken snubbers and chain regardless of any damage the hook caused and regardless of which hook you used.

Mark


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

colemj said:


> Ewww. Just Ewww. Plus I don't believe it - it was 70F here the other morning and, while we were panicking about the cold, I had no problem getting the shackle off the chain.
> 
> Mark


* Cold starts when the water gets hard.

* We turn the heat to 65 F at dinner time so the house isn't too ho to sleep well.


----------

