Anchor Warranties

[Anders]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Shank strength

Warranties are great but, personally I'd rather have an anchor robustly constructed in the first place such that there will be no warranty issues - but everyone to their own. If a bit of paper with a water tight warranty is what you want, rather than an accident proof anchor - be my guest.

Jonathan

A statement on their website that they will replace and ship for free a broken or bent anchor no matter what happened shows to me that they have confidence in what they are selling!

[JonJo]

When I wear a harness and when I or the grandchildren wear a lifejacket we want ones that meets a recognised internationally accepted specification. My wife does not wish, nor would need, to have a replacement lifejacket sent in the mail free of charge.

Read a chain thread - the recommendation is for Proof Tested chain, yet many of those same people who recommend Proof Tested chain (usually G43) are willing to invest in other safety equipment with no specification whatsoever and whose safety is shown to be suspect.

By all means buy the equipment with the water tight warranty - but why will you need the component if your yacht is wrecked on the shore. Given the quality I wonder how your insurance company will view your purchase decisions.

Water tight warranty is an excellent concept - I'd rather have a component that is shown to be built for the application for which it is to be used.

But some parts of the market are uncontrolled, that's the way we seem to like it. No wonder our chandlers are awash with cheap Chinese anchors built to no specifications (we now have cheap locally made anchors built to no specifications!)

Take care,

Jonathan

[Coops]

Could I ask what these specifications are? As far as I can see there are no specifications required to build an anchor to in Australia.

It was the same when local boat builders were trying to stop imports. They claimed that the imports were not built to the standards that they had to build them to. But there were none. It was all a furphy.

Coops.

[JonJo]

Hi Coops,

AMSA, they are the people who rescue you when you are in difficulty 1,000 Nm into the Southern Ocean and who are in the process of centralising all build and usage rules for vessels in Australia have a set of rules for Anchors, originally under the NMSC. These rules are not exclusive, you do not need to meet them, but if you do meet them you gain whatever certification level you have applied for. Meeting these rules then allows a customer to make a judgement.

Lifejackets do meet standards, harnesses meet standards - maybe I articulated it incorrectly - who do we not push that anchors, chains etc meet standards, or do we not care. Its our 'industry' its our leisure activity.

Noelex want to define warranty for each anchor maker, maybe we could have warranty for each chain maker - frankly I'd rather put my weight behind having the things made to a declared, and advertised, standard in the first place.

Jonathan

[avb3]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Hi Coops,

AMSA, they are the people who rescue you when you are in difficulty 1,000 Nm into the Southern Ocean and who are in the process of centralising all build and usage rules for vessels in Australia have a set of rules for Anchors, originally under the NMSC. These rules are not exclusive, you do not need to meet them, but if you do meet them you gain whatever certification level you have applied for. Meeting these rules then allows a customer to make a judgement.

Lifejackets do meet standards, harnesses meet standards - maybe I articulated it incorrectly - who do we not push that anchors, chains etc meet standards, or do we not care. Its our 'industry' its our leisure activity.

Noelex want to define warranty for each anchor maker, maybe we could have warranty for each chain maker - frankly I'd rather put my weight behind having the things made to a declared, and advertised, standard in the first place.

Jonathan

Nothing wrong standards, in fact I support that. However the first question is who defines the standard, and on what basis. Is it just a simple as to determine what metals are used ?

Automobile makers need do meet certain standards, however the standards for Toyota Australia is different than the standards for the Toyota in Germany which is different than the standards for Toyota in United States, and even there California has its own standards.

Determining the actual warranties that the various anchor manufacturers have is a significant first step. As you can see, there is some confusion with some of those manufacturers.

As a consumer, both are important to me. This thread is attempting to deal with the one item, warranties. Let's try and stay with that and not get sidetracked.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Noelex want to define warranty for each anchor maker, maybe we could have warranty for each chain maker - frankly I'd rather put my weight behind having the things made to a declared, and advertised, standard in the first place.

The standards we have for anchors were unfortunately written for big ship anchors. These standards have very little relevance to the sort of anchors we use. They would not influence my buying decision.

Let's look at what they mean:

Super high holding power (sounds fantastic doesn't it):

1. Holding power:
The anchor will hold 4x the holding power of an admiralty anchor. Yes, one of those primitive things that big ships use (picture below). How good is one of those is in a 30lb anchor?
Another definition is that a SHHP power anchor has to hold 6x its mass.
For say a 35lb anchor, that's 210 lb. The yachting world tests showed similar sized anchors were holding over 5,000 lb.

2. Proof load:
The standard is unfortunately for a vertical pull which means little. Anchors don't bend this way. It encourages very deep shanks which is detrimental to holding.
A 55kg anchor is required to hold 2.4T in this test. A Chinese Rocna held over 15T. (It actually didn't break with 29T )

In reality the current standards mean almost nothing to the sort of anchors we use, but they are selling points.

Meanwhile the very real and practical difference between an anchor labeled:

Lifetime warranty (manufacturing defects only)

and the real guarantees offered by Anchor Right, Fortress, and Mantus are lost on the boat buying public. The purpose of this thread was to highlight those differences and to clarify the position of many companies that make their warranty policy as clear as mud.

[JonJo]

Noelex

+1

We both want better, or more dependable, anchors. If you can get warranty, or the lack of it, to work toward this - all power to you.

I want better anchors, and then warranty is of less significance and if the warrantor disappears it is a minor issue.

We have the same objectives,

But you have my vote - go for it!

Jonathan

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by DainyRays

So, has anyone ever experienced an anchor failure? I haven't in my over 40 years of sailing experience. Sure, I've experienced dragging of an anchor but never mechanical failure. So, what is a warranty against mechanical failure really worth then?

Not much! That is why there is so little risk to a manufacturer to give a lifetime anything goes warranty on something that probably cost more to ship that make. There is so little risk to them.


If you study marketing you learn that one of the ways to overcome poor quality is to offer a warranty because people then are willing to buy it. So offering a life time anything goes warranty results in much more sales than it costs. In this case I'm not saying that the anchors are poor quality, just that the fact of warranty doesn't make the high quality.

[SV Sea Monkey]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The standards we have for anchors were unfortunately written for big ship anchors. These standards have very little relevance to the sort of anchors we use. They would not influence my buying decision. Let's look at what they mean: Super high holding power (sounds fantastic doesn't it): 1. Holding power: The anchor will hold 4x the holding power of an admiralty anchor. Yes, one of those primitive things that big ships use (picture below). How good is one of those is in a 30lb anchor? Another definition is that a SHHP power anchor has to hold 6x its mass. For say a 35lb anchor, that's 210 lb. The yachting world tests showed similar sized anchors were holding over 5,000 lb. 2. Proof load: The standard is unfortunately for a vertical pull which means little. Anchors don't bend this way. It encourages very deep shanks which is detrimental to holding. A 55kg anchor is required to hold 2.4T in this test. A Chinese Rocna held over 15T. (It actually didn't break with 29T ) In reality the current standards mean almost nothing to the sort of anchors we use, but they are selling points. Meanwhile the very real and practical difference between an anchor labeled: Lifetime warranty (manufacturing defects only) and the real guarantees offered by Anchor Right, Fortress, and Mantus are lost on the boat buying public. The purpose of this thread was to highlight those differences and to clarify the position of many companies that make their warranty policy as clear as mud.

Noelex et al., I am enjoying the relevant discussion on this thread, and it even seems to wander back onto topic frequently. I would like to point out, though, that the anchor pictured in the post above appears to be a stockless design, which is an improvement on the admiralty pattern. I believe the photo below is of an admiralty pattern, also known as a fisherman's anchor. I'm no expert here, so please correct me if I'm wrong (I don't doubt that someone will...) This may seem like nitpicking, but if this is the standard for determining SHHP I agree that standards for smaller boats might be in order.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Noelex,

Thank you for your kind words about our warranty. I would like to make sure that it is accurately presented:

• We offer a Lifetime Parts Replacement Warranty. If a customer damages any anchor part, we will replace it for free. The only cost to the customer is for shipping & handling, which is usually nominal since we ship parts via the US Postal Service, unless the customer requests otherwise. The US Postal Service rates are typically far less expensive than UPS, FEDEX, DHL, etc.

• The customer does not have to return the damaged parts to us. However, if the customer is asking us to send them the parts that will make up a complete new anchor, then we will ask the customer to send us an image for inspection.

• To take advantage of our warranty, a customer does not have to produce a sales receipt, nor is it required that they had previously registered their purchase by sending in a warranty registration card.

• The customer does not have to be the original purchaser. He could have bought it second hand at a garage sale, or on eBay, or found it on the bottom of the ocean.

JonJo has a very strong point regarding the materials of an anchor vs. the warranty offered by the manufacturer. Simply stated, a terrific warranty certainly does not offset poor material quality for such an important piece of safety equipment.

I know that Rex at Anchor Right is very passionate about extensively testing his designs and using the highest grade of material for his products. We at Fortress applaud his efforts.

Our company founder shared this same passion and he conducted thousands of tests, oftentimes to destruction, before he sold anchor No. 1 to the boating market.

I would hope that any anchor manufacturer with a product to offer to the boating market has done the same. Further still, boaters should demand to know this before investing in their products.

Safe boating,
Brian Sheehan

And this is why I have a SARCA Excel and a Fortress on my boat, two high quality, rigorously tested anchors from excellent manufacturers. I dont expect to ever have to make a warranty claim on either - ever - period, not ever.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by SV Sea Monkey

I believe the photo below is of an admiralty pattern, also known as a fisherman's anchor. I'm no expert here, so please correct me if I'm wrong (I don't doubt that someone will...) This may seem like nitpicking, but if this is the standard for determining SHHP I agree that standards for smaller boats might be in order.

Attachment 68951

Sorry Sea monkey you are quite correct.

The standard actually states a stockless anchor. So the picture was correct but my use of the term admiralty to describe the anchor was not.

To save confusion I have included another photo which is the sort of anchor the standard uses to compare against the test anchor.

These stockless anchors work for large ships. They don't scale down well so their holding power in the range we are taking about is pretty abysmal. Super high holding sounds a very impressive label to attach to an anchor, but in reality it means 4x better than the sort of anchor pictured below. Which is not very impressive at all.

[SV Sea Monkey]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Sorry Sea monkey you are quite correct. The standard actually states a stockless anchor. So the picture was correct but my use of the term admiralty to describe the anchor was not. I have heard it called an admiralty stockless and I incorrectly shortened it admiralty when the qualifying term "stockless" is important. To save confusion I have included another photo which is the sort of anchor the standard uses to compare against the test anchor. These stockless anchors work for large ships, but they don't scale down well so their holding power in the range we are taking about is pretty abysmal.

Novel ex,

Thank you for the clarification. I am curious--it seems that many entities have conducted tests on yacht anchors, but none of those tests are accepted as truly independent and objective. If an organization were to carry out comprehensive testing on a wide variety of modern yacht anchors, those tests would be subject to the same criticism--so why would anyone go to the trouble and expense of doing so? Whose results would be broadly accepted by the international boating community? Is there such an organization?

I must confess I have a motive in asking this question. The school where I teach has a substantial Naval Architecture department--I was thinking of proposing this as an interesting project for them. We don't have access to all bottom types locally, but I think that's a challenge they could overcome.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by SV Sea Monkey

I must confess I have a motive in asking this question. The school where I teach has a substantial Naval Architecture department--I was thinking of proposing this as an interesting project for them. We don't have access to all bottom types locally, but I think that's a challenge they could overcome.

The tests for standard approval are very expensive to conduct. They are paid for by the anchor manufacturer. To test a wide range of alternative anchors is more expensive again.

The results from different manufacturers cannot be compared because they
are held in different locations with different equipment.

If you can organise an independent test that would be great. A naval school should have access to lot of the equipment needed at minimal cost (and free labour from the students )

Very few have managed to conduct these tests well and even with lots of effort the limited number of trials for each anchor, only a few bottom types, and lack of normal operating conditions means the tests act as good guide rather than the definitive last word on anchor performance.

But more tests would be fantastic there are a whole range of new anchors that have not been tested.

[Mantus Anchors]

It's really very simple, I believe Mantus Anchor is the most reliable anchor on the market and the safest anchor to put on your bow....why?
Bc it will set every time! Every Single Time! The "sleek" videos are there to demo that point and more are on the way..
Mantus with or without the roll bar, if deployed, will SET... I believe that the readers of this forum and our customers are smart enough to determine which configuration is best for them, given their specific anchorage location and fit preferences.
It is no secret that the anchor can end up upside down if used without the roll bar,
but we do know it is an exceedingly rare event. Given sufficient vertical height, the anchor rights itself as it falls through the water. As suggested earlier there are many designs like SUPERMAX and BRUCE (check out the new BRUCE PICS http://www.seaquipment.com/images/su...ctures/419.jpg)
that can potentially end up upside down, but as stated earlier it's hard for these anchors to end up in this orientation. Again I think a customer using the Mantus can choose the configuration that is best for them.

We bring a versatile anchor that allows for flat storage, ease of replacement of damaged parts and the best setting performance....

Our shanks were made of A36 mild steel but we have recently switched to a higher strength ASTM 514 alloy ... We never had a claim for a bent shank yet - the shank is designed to accommodate "violent storm, 60+ kts, loads for its respectively sized boat. In a nominal configuration, shank parallel to rode, the shank does not fail or bend. The most common way to bend a shank is by side loading bc stuck in rocks or something similar. But we listen to our customers and strive to bring the best product available on the market. Any customer who wants his Mantus Shank switched to the new ASTM 514 material shank should only call us...
Greg

Further we believe warranties do matter. They mean we take care of our customers not the point of sale but to the end... You buy a Mantus, we become part of your adventure and will take care of you.. I think that matters...

[Mantus Anchors]

for those curious we were the 5th monohull in, in a fleet of 170 boats...
it was a perfect race... the only trouble was my fault broached with a 110 square meter spinnaker
Greg