General consensus on Ultra Anchor

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Yes but he also stated the Rocna was 33 lbs in comparison to the 45 lb competition - not really in the same league.

I just bought a 33 pound Spade on Craigslist (super cheap). I will test next time boat is in water.

Steve

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by David B

It is very unfair to compare the price of two brands of anchor when one is manufactured from stainless steel and the other from galvanised steel. Comparing other brands of stainless steel anchor, the prices are similar.

As a full time cruiser I don't want and would never have a S/S anchor.
If they choose not to supply a galv anchor what choice does one have but to compare what I use with what they supply and call "cheap"

[CarlF]

It's an interesting thought that the Ultra and Spade may not perform well at 3:1 scope in soft bottoms. That seems plausible.

I use a minimum of 4:1 with my Ultra and find it reliable in all bottom types (50,000lb boat with a 100lb anchor)

My Ultra is better than any anchor I've ever had at penetrating hard or grassy bottoms. I assume that the weighted tip that is bent down is perfectly positioned to gouge its way into a hard substrate. But it seems possible that on a very short scope the chain has some upward pull on the the shank that is taking some weight off the tip -- so it doesn't dig as deep.

It's clear from the geometry of both the Ultra and Spade (including the picture above of the Spade) that the shank needs to be down low to put the tip at the right angle.

Maybe I'll experiment with 3:1 and 5:1 scopes in different bottoms. But honestly, I'd prefer to anchor in a harbor that's empty enough that I can use 5:1 without swinging into anyone.

[Jim Cate]

Apparently both Spade and Ultra set better with longer scope. Can you then shorten up once the anchor is well set without loosing holding power to excess?

My experience with new gen anchors is all with Manson Supreme. My common practice is to drop and veer ~ 2:1 and then, with boat moving astern slowly, snub off. This straightens the chain and pulls out any pileup that has happened with the initial drop. And even with this very short scope, it normally sets and brings the boat suddenly to a halt. I generally continue to veer, snubbing a bit every 25 feet or so until 4 or 5 to one is reached, and then we do a serious power set. To me, this implies that it sets rapidly at very short scope, quite unlike what is being reported for the hoopless types.

This is a 60 lb anchor, 10 mm chain and a boat whose laden weight is around 12 tonnes.

Jim

[Panope]

I found the Spade anchor to set and reset perfectly at short (2.5 to 1) scope:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8P-gS1Z-oI&t=103s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l360fhPlqU4

[noelex 77]

I have shown a photo of what I consider to be a disappointing result from an Ultra and to be fair, I should show the opposite. This was an excellent deep, progressive and reasonably rapid set by an Ultra.

I do not want to leave the impression the Ultra is any way a poor anchor. The type of excellent result shown in this photo below is never, or almost never seen with lesser anchor designs. The Ultra is, in my opinion, a very good anchor, enormously better than a typical convex plow anchor, but I do not think the Ultra has quite the performance of the Mantus, Rocna, and steel Spade, at least that is my impression so far.

There are many photos of the Ultra working underwater in the thread I linked. As I have indicated, some of the results from this anchor model are in my view excellent, others less so. It is hard to pick a couple of examples that are truely representative, so if considering buying this anchor take a look and make up your own mind.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Muaddib1116

Those are some nice pictures. Can you tell us what the boat size and displacement for that was and what the anchor size was?

This question relates to Ultra shown in post#49. It was a reasonable sized anchor for the vessel. The mitigating factors were a relatively short scope in reasonably shallow water and a soft substrate. This is a difficult combination, but I thought the anchor on this occasion should have done better.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Given the difference in vegetation levels between the two photos, I assume these are separate examples? Or is it the same anchor after dragging a considerable distance? The upper photo also shows a fairly long "setting" furrow - was it also at short scope?

This question also relates to Ultra anchors shown in post#49. They are both Ultra anchors, but are indeed completely different examples. The setting distance was a little disappointing in example shown the first photo (with the Mermaid). The scope was between 3 and 4:1 in 9m of water.

[Ultra Marine West]

I tried to explain that ULTRA has a unique curved tip so it works better than all others in short scope.

You then put it in the same group with Spade. ULTRA's tip design is totally different than Spade and that makes the difference in short scope.

I also saw some pictures shared here noting it is a little disappointing to see the performance of ULTRA at short scope but when I check the link there is a note saying.

"It is possible there is a problem with the substrate here such as rock under the soft sand. The sand looked identical to the areas where other anchors were doing well but this does not guarantee it is the same. Normally when an anchor is performing below par I have a good poke around under the substrate, but we were getting tired by this stage and the anchor was in reasonably deep water so no tests were done."

Is it still disappointing if there is a rock under soft sand as noted here?

Please see the pulling angle in this video. If there is not a rock under sand, ULTRA will hold as you see. This is even rope plus short chain scope is around 1:2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7cPWOeTv0U

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Ultra Marine West

I tried to explain that ULTRA has a unique curved tip so it works better than all others in short scope.

Have you tested it against all others in a controlled experiment?

I liked the video and wished we had videos of other anchors from that vantage (wink wink Panope, Noelex, et al.) with a similar slow pull, as in setting.

[Ultra Marine West]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Have you tested it against all others in a controlled experiment?

I liked the video and wished we had videos of other anchors from that vantage (wink wink Panope, Noelex, et al.) with a similar slow pull, as in setting.

Yes, we did when we designed the ULTRA in early 2000, and we kept on doing the same tests with all new anchors coming to the market. However, it is not in our marketing approach to show the weaknesses of the other anchors.

We have very popular and busy bays with deep waters in the south part of Turkey, such as Gocek, where we stern tie too, therefore, the scope is a big issue, and ULTRA makes a huge performance difference there. That is how we became that popular in Turkey at the beginning. It wasn't the beauty of the anchor. You don't need to deal with five different pieces to make the shank of the ULTRA to make it beautiful. I am sure as time goes by and the number of ULTRA Anchors in use increases there, you will also realize the performance difference of our concept, as well.

[OrinocoFlo]

We purchased both Ultra anchors for their superior performance and they have not disappointed us. $5,200 for a 60kg anchor is not so much money to spend when looking to protect a 3 million dollar investment, it’s a small price to pay for peace of mind when we go to shore for the day or when sleeping at night.

Thank you Ultra

Pam

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Ultra Marine West

Yes, we did when we designed the ULTRA in early 2000, and we kept on doing the same tests with all new anchors coming to the market. However, it is not in our marketing approach to show the weaknesses of the other anchors.

Well that's mighty magnanimous of you, but the true test would be independent (third party) testing under controlled conditions, published and repeatable.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Well that's mighty magnanimous of you, but the true test would be independent (third party) testing under controlled conditions, published and repeatable.

It's getting the repeatable part that makes anchor testing so hard and so contentious. Minor differences in the substrate, such as can be found in every bottom, can skew the results wildly. Looking at some of the previous tests where each anchor was checked several times, you will see big variances between tests of a given anchor, even when done in limited areas and short time frames.

And then everyone picks the data that best support their thesis or product... what a surprise!

A damn hard job, anchor testing!

Jim

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

It's getting the repeatable part that makes anchor testing so hard and so contentious. Minor differences in the substrate, such as can be found in every bottom, can skew the results wildly. Looking at some of the previous tests where each anchor was checked several times, you will see big variances between tests of a given anchor, even when done in limited areas and short time frames.

And then everyone picks the data that best support their thesis or product... what a surprise!

A damn hard job, anchor testing!

Jim

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

It's getting the repeatable part that makes anchor testing so hard and so contentious. Minor differences in the substrate, such as can be found in every bottom, can skew the results wildly. Looking at some of the previous tests where each anchor was checked several times, you will see big variances between tests of a given anchor, even when done in limited areas and short time frames.

And then everyone picks the data that best support their thesis or product... what a surprise!

A damn hard job, anchor testing!

Jim

Jim, slow down, you're stuttering.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Jim, slow down, you're stuttering.

Oooops...

Wiped from the face of CF forever!

Jim