General consensus on Ultra Anchor

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Ultra Marine West

, but if you still want to carry one on the bow. Please refer to the below picture of Fleming 58. They place the main anchor through the bowsprit so you can use it without chain dragging on the platform issue, plus you can place the second anchor you will probably not need to use at all over the bow.

That Fleming 58 could easily place a roll-bar anchor in the position of the second anchor, so that skewers your argument about fitting them on bowsprits

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Thank you for the document. You'll have a hard time convincing folks around here that fluke surface area means nothing. The Danforth and similar designs (read Fortress) are all-stars in soft mud. Surface area=hold.

From the document you produced, your 27Kg model has a fluke area of 1232sqcm and held to 2530kgf; from the link I posted RINA tested the 25Kg Rocna (with 1415sqcm fluke area) held to an average of 6250kgf. Of course this isn't side-by-side testing in the same substrate, but it does serve to punch a few holes in your boasts.

Marketing meet realty

[jhkm12345]

Talk about a dog pile...

Looks like a great product to me. A bit niche market but we'll though out, well made and appears to give outstanding performance.

I give Ultra extra credit for showing up to the slaughter house that is cf. There really is no good way for this thread to end.

Op did get their answers though. Everyone who has one seems to swear by it and most of those seem to have experience with other modern anchors to compare it against... That's worth something for sure.

[Jim Cate]

Op did get their answers though. Everyone who has one seems to swear by it and most of those seem to have experience with other modern anchors to compare it against... That's worth something for sure.

While I agree with the general implication of this, do note that IIRC none of the comparisons were between Spade and Ultra, and Spade is the only other commonly available non-rollbar modern anchor. I'd be interested in any head to head comparisons between this pair of designs.

My take: it could be true that Ultra is a bit better than other designs, but any advantage that it has could be overcome by buying a slightly larger example of the other designs, and at a lower price. I too think that bling on the bow is not a consideration when making an anchor choice, and plain ole galvo is just fine. Besides, our anchor spends a lot more time in the mud where you can't see it than displayed on the bow!

Jim

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by jhkm12345

. Everyone who has one seems to swear by it and most of those seem to have experience with other modern anchors to compare it against... That's worth something for sure.

And the majority on here with other brands of modern anchors have no problems, many of them world cruisers, many of them full time anchorers, many of them seeing some decent weather.

My take on that is that all modern anchors are good, I reckon I would be happy with any that have Lloyd's shhp classification as long as it fitted and I could afford it.

Add: what he (Jim) said ^^^^^^

[Lost Horizons]

Originally Posted by Ultra Marine West

I am so sorry, sir, but I have to disagree with you here again. Calling a boat with bowsprit "Poorly Designed" is a big mistake.

I have absolutely nothing against bow platforms. It is just the one that you have shown is not optimal. I am guessing it was designed to support a Danforth type anchor and should be good for it. It is also unnecessarily long, increasing the LOA without the benefit of keeping the anchor away from the hull. That extra foot of LOA will cost the owner additional charges from a marina and most of services including bottom painting and cleaning - for the same amount of work.

[Lost Horizons]

Originally Posted by Ultra Marine West

Sir, I keep on looking at the picture of your boat, and there is surely something wrong there. Even if they are the factory-installed standard items, they didn't design the boat to accommodate these items. They decided to use these items after they designed that boat (you can check it with them). That boat has a bowsprit just like the new Beneteau 46.1", and they made changes to be able to put an anchor with roll-bar.

You are incorrect. That design has evolved over a long time and long before roll bar anchors were invented. Also, it is silly to even compare one of the best high end long range cruiser with a mass production sailboat aimed primarily at chartering market.
Took a few pictures today for your reference.

[Ultra Marine West]

Originally Posted by ronstory

OK, this anchor has digressed into the usual "my anchor is best"... but this time from the salesperson of a manufacturer.

What I liked about Spade was when I called to get sizing info one of the questions the rep asked was what I was currently using. I responded with a "real" CQN 35 and a Fortress FX-23... and he could not say enough nice things about the Fortress anchor's performance in mud/soft surfaces, plus the company itself. I ultimately bought an A100 for a boat unit and it's been a great anchor, amazing grip for something that light and in the Puget Sound we know about tide reversal. ;^)

So when a rep thinks his anchor is best at everything for everyone in every condition, all other designs can't be as perfect... I'm sure there is a large Kool-aid container somewhere that is is looking pretty empty.

I'm now hitting 'ignore' on his marketing thread. Good luck.

But this time the rep is giving all technical information explaining why it is the best with the support of the ULTRA users. So far no user said anything against what that rep said...

[Sojourner]

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?

Yeah, looking at that it doesn't seem like a good result at all, which I can't explain. When you look at our rocna set in a nice bottom like that, it goes in up to the top of the rollbar within it's own length (or 1 or 2 anchor lengths max). I do set at 5:1 scope almost always, however, which probably makes the difference....

[MartinR]

Originally Posted by Ultra Marine West

I am so sorry, sir, but I have to disagree with you here again. Calling a boat with bowsprit "Poorly Designed" is a big mistake. Modern sailboats started to use straight bows to increase their performances, but then placing the anchor to these boats became a bigger issue. As the bow is straight, they have to place the anchors further away. Here the bowsprit solution is helping them so well; this way, they don't have to place the anchor too far away like it is at your boat.

Most modern boats are designed to give the longest possible waterline for the given LOA, that's why the straight bows. But if you add a bowsprit and increase the LOA, actually nothing is gained by this concept.

[Ultra Marine West]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Great. Thanks for the clarification.

I think that the requirement that the anchor size should be appropriate for the boat is perfectly reasonable, but I didn’t like the suggestion that a claim may be denied because, for example, the owner did not use a trip line, or needed a lot of force to extract the anchor. I am very glad to hear that this is not the case for the Ultra anchor.

It is also helpful that the anchor can be returned to a local dealer. This is much better than returning it to the dealer where the anchor was purchased, or even worse the anchor manufacturer. Some anchor manufacturers have this requirement and it can be an expensive imposition.

If I understand correctly, if a Ultra anchor was bent the owner will be required to pay for the transport of the replacement anchor from the manufacturer in Turkey to the local dealer, as well as returning the damaged anchor to the local dealer. Is this correct?

Please note that I am not criticising any of these costs, just trying to clarify what owners can expect if they bend their anchor.

If an ULTRA Anchor was bent the owner will be required to pay for the transport of the replacement anchor from the closest distributor, not from Turkey. If that happens in Australia, they will have to send the anchor to our distributor in Australia and pay the transport cost of the replacement anchor from our distributor in Australia.

[Ultra Marine West]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Thank you for the document. You'll have a hard time convincing folks around here that fluke surface area means nothing. The Danforth and similar designs (read Fortress) are all-stars in soft mud. Surface area=hold.

From the document you produced, your 27Kg model has a fluke area of 1232sqcm and held to 2530kgf; from the link I posted RINA tested the 25Kg Rocna (with 1415sqcm fluke area) held to an average of 6250kgf. Of course this isn't side-by-side testing in the same substrate, but it does serve to punch a few holes in your boasts.

Surface area = hold, but if the anchor can catch the bottom first. Danforth owners all know how difficult it is to set it on harder sea bottoms and grass.

Sir, I am resending that document, please read it again.

These are the Lloyd’s minimum holding power requests for certification to give an idea. ULTRA easily holds more than 4 times the normal anchor, and it also exceeds this easily together with increased forces.

Once again it also exceeds this 2530kgf but that was enough for ABS. So ideally you are comparing the minimum holding power of ULTRA with other anchor’s maximum.

ULTRA Anchor's holding characteristics is different than the other anchors.

The other anchors increase their holding power after they are set together with increased forces. However, once their maximum holding power is exceeded, they start dragging.
Only ULTRA, has its unique patented tip design. Together with this tip design and weight distribution, it first sets easily. Afterward, it keeps on digging deeper with increased forces and never comes out.
Therefore ULTRA doesn't have fixed holding power. However, it holds more than the other anchors with the same surface area.

We can show Lloyd's holding power requests for certification to give an idea. Lloyds certificates the highest holding powered anchors as HHP or SHHP. These anchors hold minimum 4 times than the normal anchor.

ULTRA easily holds more than 4 times the normal anchor, and it also exceeds this easily together with increased forces.

[Ultra Marine West]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

That Fleming 58 could easily place a roll-bar anchor in the position of the second anchor, so that skewers your argument about fitting them on bowsprits

The owner of Fleming, Mr. Tony Fleming, bought two same sizes ULTRA and the best known roll-bar anchor which you also have and put them on the same size two Flemings and used them in both the same places. After his first-hand experiences, he decided to make the ULTRA standard on all Fleming boats, and they have been so happy by that decision.

It is not because they couldn’t position the second anchor as a roll-bared one; it looks like it was because of the real-life performance difference between the ULTRA and that anchor with roll-bar, as noted by all ULTRA users here.

Marketing meets reality.

[Ultra Marine West]

Originally Posted by Lost Horizons

You are incorrect. That design has evolved over a long time and long before roll bar anchors were invented. Also, it is silly to even compare one of the best high end long range cruiser with a mass production sailboat aimed primarily at chartering market.
Took a few pictures today for your reference.

Sir, you misunderstood me. I wasn’t trying to compare the Beneteau with your boat. I was trying to explain why bowsprits are becoming more common in today’s World.

Let’s talk about the high range of long-range cruisers—Hallberg Rassy made the ULTRA standard like Fleming and many others for all their boats, too.

Please see the below picture.

The bowsprit you have is way longer than the one Halberg Rassy uses. That is why you have the “dark brown pieces” to protect the gel coat on the platform from the chain dragging over. Plus, the anchor placed over your bow platform increases the LOA of your boat, and you face additional charges from a marina and most of the services, including bottom painting and cleaning – for the same amount of work.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Ultra Marine West

Surface area = hold, but if the anchor can catch the bottom first. Danforth owners all know how difficult it is to set it on harder sea bottoms and grass.

Yes and we all know that other anchors have much reduced hold in mud. No single anchor will outperform all others in all bottoms.

Sir, I am resending that document, please read it again.

Well if it doesn't give your anchor's maximum hold, then I don't see what reading it again will do.

These are the Lloyd’s minimum holding power requests for certification to give an idea. ULTRA easily holds more than 4 times the normal anchor, and it also exceeds this easily together with increased forces.

Once again it also exceeds this 2530kgf but that was enough for ABS. So ideally you are comparing the minimum holding power of ULTRA with other anchor’s maximum.

Then you have no proof of the Ultra's maximum holding power?

ULTRA Anchor's holding characteristics is different than the other anchors.

The other anchors increase their holding power after they are set together with increased forces. However, once their maximum holding power is exceeded, they start dragging.
Only ULTRA, has its unique patented tip design. Together with this tip design and weight distribution, it first sets easily. Afterward, it keeps on digging deeper with increased forces and never comes out.

We have pictures on this thread that tend to disprove that.

Therefore ULTRA doesn't have fixed holding power. However, it holds more than the other anchors with the same surface area.

Apparently untested and therefore your statements are unfounded. Other anchors of the same weight appear to have greater surface area than the Ultra - so what are you doing, comparing Ultra to lower-weight competitors? We'd be glad to see the results of independent tests.

We can show Lloyd's holding power requests for certification to give an idea. Lloyds certificates the highest holding powered anchors as HHP or SHHP. These anchors hold minimum 4 times than the normal anchor.

ULTRA easily holds more than 4 times the normal anchor, and it also exceeds this easily together with increased forces.

All SHHP anchors (ie. all new-gen anchors) easily hold more than 4 times the force of the same weight standard stockless - Ultra isn't the only certificated SHHP anchor.