Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[hpeer]

Seems to me pretty obvious that the extra money goes to two places, manufacturing and marketing.

Plate is plate, completely automated simple shape no marketing.
Chain is a complex shape requiring tight tolerances and expensive machinery, galvanizing, but little marketing.
Anchors, especially Spade, require hand work to cut out the bits, weld em up, pour in the lead, and galvanize. But then they need to be marketed and shipped via expensive means.

I think if you look at it from a dollars per hour basis it will look much different.

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Patience is a virtue, but the Knox anchor is claiming some impressive figures.

Jonathan

Not sure how the air space gap in the fluke of the Knox anchor would make it hold better. I wonder if that is to get around the Rocna fluke patent?

Knox anchor states:
"The key innovative feature of the Knox anchor is its patented DIVIDED FLUKE rigidly welded to the shank. The Divided Fluke is responsible for the exceptional holding power of the Knox Anchor."

[congo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJo
Patience is a virtue, but the Knox anchor is claiming some impressive figures.


Jonathan

By Cotemar

Not sure how the air space gap in the fluke of the Knox anchor would make it hold better. I wonder if that is to get around the Rocna fluke patent?

Knox anchor states:
"The key innovative feature of the Knox anchor is its patented DIVIDED FLUKE rigidly welded to the shank. The Divided Fluke is responsible for the exceptional holding power of the Knox Anchor."

Rocna (does not) have a Patent on its fluke.


Regards Rex.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Not sure how the air space gap in the fluke of the Knox anchor would make it hold better. I wonder if that is to get around the Rocna fluke patent?

Knox anchor states:
"The key innovative feature of the Knox anchor is its patented DIVIDED FLUKE rigidly welded to the shank. The Divided Fluke is responsible for the exceptional holding power of the Knox Anchor."

I'm not sure sure how innovative this key feature of the Knox anchor is in the first place, looks a lot like a Danforth fluke to me. What's so innovative about that?

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by congo

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJo
Patience is a virtue, but the Knox anchor is claiming some impressive figures.


Jonathan

By Cotemar

Not sure how the air space gap in the fluke of the Knox anchor would make it hold better. I wonder if that is to get around the Rocna fluke patent?

Knox anchor states:
"The key innovative feature of the Knox anchor is its patented DIVIDED FLUKE rigidly welded to the shank. The Divided Fluke is responsible for the exceptional holding power of the Knox Anchor."

Rocna (does not) have a Patent on its fluke.


Regards Rex.

And it is no longer divided, it is now closed at the toe.

Jonathan

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by congo

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJo
Patience is a virtue, but the Knox anchor is claiming some impressive figures.


Jonathan

By Cotemar

Not sure how the air space gap in the fluke of the Knox anchor would make it hold better. I wonder if that is to get around the Rocna fluke patent?

Knox anchor states:
"The key innovative feature of the Knox anchor is its patented DIVIDED FLUKE rigidly welded to the shank. The Divided Fluke is responsible for the exceptional holding power of the Knox Anchor."

Rocna (does not) have a Patent on its fluke.


Regards Rex.

Rex- Maybe you can confirm/clarify something for us. I have it that the only Patent protection the currently marketed Rocna anchors have is for a Design Patent. Is that correct?

A Design Patent being one that only protects the aesthetic design elements of an object of functional utility, basically how pretty it is, like a copyright and that this is distinct from a normal Patent, which protects the actual functional utility of an innovative design.

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by congo

Not sure how the air space gap in the fluke of the Knox anchor would make it hold better. I wonder if that is to get around the Rocna fluke patent?

Knox anchor states:
"The key innovative feature of the Knox anchor is its patented DIVIDED FLUKE rigidly welded to the shank. The Divided Fluke is responsible for the exceptional holding power of the Knox Anchor."

Rocna (does not) have a Patent on its fluke.

Regards Rex.

I see these two patents for Pete Smith (Rocna)

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/D552526.pdf

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20130068152.pdf

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

I see these two patents for Pete Smith (Rocna)

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/D552526.pdf

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20130068152.pdf

Right, the first one is a Design Patent for the Rocna we know. The second is a more recent application for a new anchor design fabricated from cast parts, not cut from plate, which I haven't seen for sale anywhere.

The first one, being only a Design Patent, doesn't protect the shank, the fluke, or the roll bar as functional components. It only protects the subtle details of how it LOOKS.

Scale, proportion, specific shape, line and edge profiles, that kind of thing, but not the function itself. You could make a very similar but subtlety different anchor without impinging on a Design Patent, but it's tricky. Apple beat Samsung on a Design Patent but it can go the other way too, example Manson Supreme.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by JonJo

They are all intelligent sane people, not swung by glib talk (or not) they buy because these anchors work.

I would have to disagree. Any anchor thread will prove that anchor buying has little to do with intelligence and sanity, and has a lot to do with glib talk.

Heck just a little while ago there was the suggestion that anchor tests don't mean anything and that holding power is overrated.

[congo]

Yes its a sad story , the first Rocna does not have a patent, the second with a flat roll bar looks as if it does, easily challenged as we have the flat roll bar- flat band with chamferd cutting eges on our first ever saca as it was easier to roll.

Proved not pratickle to us, so we dropped the filed patent.

Regards Rex.

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by Delancey

The first one, being only a Design Patent, doesn't protect the shank, the fluke, or the roll bar as functional components. It only protects the subtle details of how it LOOKS.

Scale, proportion, specific shape, line and edge profiles, that kind of thing, but not the function itself. You could make a very similar but subtlety different anchor without impinging on a Design Patent, but it's tricky. Apple beat Samsung on a Design Patent.

OK, then that would explain why their are a few concave anchors that pretty much look and function the same way.

"The Manson “Supreme” is a variant of Peter Smith’s anchor design. Manson Anchors is located near the latter’s home in Auckland NZ. In 2004 Smith talked with Manson concerning licensing his new design. Seven months later Manson launched a new product identical in function with a few small variations."

[valhalla360]

I'm a fan of 2 appropriately sized anchores on rollers ready for deployment.

- If one has trouble setting, it's very easy to deploy the other, so I'm not tempted to keep trying with the one that doesn't work because it's a hassle to dig the spare out of a hatch somewhere. When people get frustrated, they make mistakes.
- If you expect wind or tidal shifts, I trust an appropriate anchor pulled in the direction it's designed to over a bigger anchor that will pull up and "hopefully" reset in the middle of the night.
- While we haven't done a hurricane, we've never drug once on our appropriately sized anchor. Of course we back down hard and make sure she's set before turning off the motor.
- Then there is the manageability aspect. People talking about 150lb anchors...if the anchor winch fails, how do you get it up if you need to move quickly? (obviously move into 50'+ boats your options diminish even using the recommended size) By sticking with the recommended size, we can motor up and pull it by hand without a problem.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

OK, then that would explain why their are a few concave anchors that pretty much look and function the same way.

"The Manson “Supreme” is a variant of Peter Smith’s anchor design. Manson Anchors is located near the latter’s home in Auckland NZ. In 2004 Smith talked with Manson concerning licensing his new design. Seven months later Manson launched a new product identical in function with a few small variations."

It's because the so called "new generation" anchor was INVENTED by Peter Bruce and Patented more than forty years ago. Single fluke, roll bar, offset shank, the works.

Fifteen years later, when the Patent was not renewed and the design passed into the public realm, the Bugel hit the scene and the rest is history. There hasn't been anything "new" about new generation anchors in forty years. Any of the current designs are nothing more than refinements of Peter Bruce's original concepts. It would be nice to see people give credit where credit is due for a change.

Maybe the only real innovation is in the Mantus which added functional utility to the Peter Bruce concepts by making it dismountable. Then again there is the Danforth-Fortress example so it's not like that is a really new idea either...

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Possibly you think the newer concave designs 'more' sophisticated - possibly you can define the commonality, the sophistication - of the Supreme, Rocna, Boss, Mantus, Spade,

I am surprised you objected to my comments below, perhaps I did not express them well, so I will elaborate.

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Putting these results together I think accurately reflects where the Bugel sits in the anchor hierarchy. It is a good anchor, but does not have the benefit of the more sophisticated concave blade shapes of the more modern anchors.

The Bugel has a very simple flat fluke. There is no attempt to shape the fluke to distribute the weight more optimally, or orientate the anchor better when setting.

If we compare the Bugel with the more sophisticated concave roll bar anchors like the Rocna Manson Supreme, Mantus we see the following improvements from the simple flat sheet of SS in the Bugel.

1. Concave shape
2. Tip weight
3. A more shaped fluke with border shoulders and a narrower tip (rather than almost the simple triangle of the Bugel
4. Skids or wings on the back of flukes to present the tip more aggressively to the substrate
5.Careful weight distribution in the fluke results in a bigger fluke surface area for the same weight anchor.

These changes I believe make these anchors better and higher performing than the simpler Bugel. Nevertheless the Bugel is still a good performing anchor.

(I have left out the Spade and Boss that you mentioned only because they are very different anchors to the Bugel so their design features are not as suitable for a simple direct comparison)

[foolishsailor]

Originally Posted by Delancey

It's because the so called "new generation" anchor was INVENTED by Peter Bruce and Patented more than forty years ago. Single fluke, roll bar, offset shank, the works. Fifteen years later, when the Patent was not renewed and the design passed into the public realm, the Bugel hit the scene and the rest is history. There hasn't been anything "new" about new generation anchors in forty years. Any of the current designs are nothing more than refinements of Peter Bruce's original concepts. It would be nice to see people give credit where credit is due for a change. Maybe the only real innovation is in the Mantus which added functional utility to the Peter Bruce concepts by making it dismountable. Then again there is the Danforth-Fortress example so it's not like that is a really new idea either...

Very interesting thanks for that!