It's True! The Mantus 65-lb. hooks first time, everytime.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by avb3

Seeing there is some disparity between the official Ultra site, and what appears to be the US sales site, it would be interesting to see if they ever respond to your request.

Clarity is a good thing, as we have already found out on this thread.

I'll try one more time. If you buy a Toyota in Tokyo, it is covered under the warranty issued in Japan. If you buy it in Chicago, the warranty is a US warranty. I have no idea if the warranties are the same in both countries, but I doubt they are. Regardless, it makes no difference to a US purchaser what the warranty is in Japan, anymore than it makes a difference to a US purchaser of an Ultra what the warranty is in Serbia.

To call the Ultra site in 'Europe' the 'official' site is simply looking for a basis for dispute, because it is no such thing. Quickline is not Ultra. It is Quickline and it issues a warranty, which I have referenced. If clarity is a good thing, let's start with understanding that one company's warranty doesn't have anything to do with another company's warranties, especially when they are on different continents.

If someone sends a message to Ultra and not Quickline and were ignored, the reason is because you sent it to the wrong company, or because Ultra has lousy customer service. Try Quickline. After all, they have a better warranty.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Mantus Anchors

Delfin, remember I am an ALTRUIST
So even if the Abrams tank did the damage, or your boat ran into the dock...
The only exception could be covering unreasonable claims on galvanization...
Eventually anchors need to be re-galvanized and that is not covered. We will review this on case by case basis... Don't get hung up on this one, our aim is to please...
Greg

Well, thanks for clarifying. A failure in galvanizing is damage, but excluded damage because it is natural damage caused by normal wear and tear even though your warranty doesn't state that.

Is there any other source of damage you can think of that would be excluded?

If I could make a suggestion which is worth what you will pay for it, why not simply state that galvanizing isn't covered, but the anchor is warrantied against bending or breaking? Just like the warranty on my Ultra, excluding the rusting bit. Just for clarity, don't you know.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

If someone sends a message to Ultra and not Quickline and were ignored, the reason is because you sent it to the wrong company, or because Ultra has lousy customer service. Try Quickline. After all, they have a better warranty.

I sent an email to Quickline a few hours ago.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I'll try one more time. If you buy a Toyota in Tokyo, it is covered under the warranty issued in Japan. If you buy it in Chicago, the warranty is a US warranty. I have no idea if the warranties are the same in both countries, but I doubt they are. Regardless, it makes no difference to a US purchaser what the warranty is in Japan, anymore than it makes a difference to a US purchaser of an Ultra what the warranty is in Serbia.

To call the Ultra site in 'Europe' the 'official' site is simply looking for a basis for dispute, because it is no such thing. Quickline is not Ultra. It is Quickline and it issues a warranty, which I have referenced. If clarity is a good thing, let's start with understanding that one company's warranty doesn't have anything to do with another company's warranties, especially when they are on different continents.

If someone sends a message to Ultra and not Quickline and were ignored, the reason is because you sent it to the wrong company, or because Ultra has lousy customer service. Try Quickline. After all, they have a better warranty.

So if we want to equate it to the Rocna mess, West Marine offered a refund or replacement, while Rocna vacillated.

Just to be clear, is it your understanding that Quickline is the a distributor or is it the manufacturer?

[noelex 77]

I have received a reply from Ultra Anchors (Quickline) and they have indicated they will join the forum and provide an answer about the warranty in the near future.
The answer is likely to be in the thread below:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1372141

I suggest we stop speculating and give them a chance to respond.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Well, thanks for clarifying. A failure in galvanizing is damage, but excluded damage because it is natural damage caused by normal wear and tear even though your warranty doesn't state that.
...

Wouldn't that generally be considered to be normal in-service wear and tear (not damage)?

[HappyMdRSailor]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Chains and rope break when they fail. Anchors do not. In most cases no-one is even aware of the problem until the anchor comes up.

I think you realise that it is not the small extra weight of a thicker shaft per se that is of concern, but rather that any extra weight in the shaft alters the balance and reduces the anchors performance.

For any given steel strength the shank can always be made lighter by reducing the thickness and depth. This will improve the anchors performance and mean we are less likely to drag.

This concentrated campaign focusing just on shank strength is in danger of forcing anchor manufacturers into producing shanks that are heavier than needed just to gain market acceptance.
I think we will be the losers.

John,

I could not agree more with your post here... Something akin to...

Company A makes a cell phone with a taser in the unlikely event that you are accosted in a dark alley.... Cell phone companies B-C-D etcetera follow suit because they are losing market share.... BUT.... The calling feature of the cell is disabled while the taser is being armed.... Undoubtedly the most important feature of a phone.... Especially in an emergency...

I would think that 99.9% of the population would prefer to have anchors that set well and fast vs. the increased strength of shanks... NOBODY has a critical emergency or life threatening instance due to the actual bending of a shank.... Pick not grabbing when you absolutely need it to... YOU BET....

This is a compromise in the wrong direction for the intended purpose... We have not even begun the ductile v. brittle discussions either... I own a test lab.... Slow predictable ductile deformations are not considered failures in most cases.... Sudden fractures and changes in structural integrity are considered failures by almost EVERY standard regardless of product...

Greg... If you're interested in a 3rd party laboratory evaluation... Let me know...

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by avb3

So if we want to equate it to the Rocna mess, West Marine offered a refund or replacement, while Rocna vacillated.

Just to be clear, is it your understanding that Quickline is the a distributor or is it the manufacturer?

They have exclusive distribution rights in the U.S. on the anchor manufactured in Turkey and can offer any warranty they want on the products they sell. I have no idea what agreement exists between Quickline and Boyut, who actually manufactures the anchor. Quickline sells other products, but their warranty approach seems to be the same for all of them.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by HappyMdRSailor

J

I would think that 99.9% of the population would prefer to have anchors that set well and fast vs. the increased strength of shanks... NOBODY has a critical emergency or life threatening instance due to the actual bending of a shank.... Pick not grabbing when you absolutely need it to... YOU BET....

Fortunately, it is not an either or. You can have an anchor that sets very quickly (Manson, Rocna, Ultra, Spade, Excel, Fortress) that also have metal or design appropriate for an anchor shaft. Or, you can have an anchor that sets quickly with lesser steel, but is cheaper (Kobra, Mantus). Mantus is apparently moving from group B to group A and may still be cheaper so should enjoy quite a bit of success for those that like a hoop anchor.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Mantus Anchors

Fortress goes first:
This is a Fortress FX 23 Arm that has undergone stress analysis....
The arm is fixed 28.5 inches from the distal end of the shackle hole (position of the fluke box) Since Fortress decided to keep the material confidential, which is totally within its right. I assumed it was Aluminium Alloy 6061 T6 that has the pretty nice properties... But correct me and I will re-run it using the actual metal specs.... Brian I think that Fortress is a well built anchor and is stronger in shank construction than our shanks currently. But if loaded as JonJo tested in his article would bend not a 2000 lbs as you suggested, and not at 1200 lbs (load on a 40 foot boat in 30 knots) the load I suggested would bend every modern anchor... but it will bend at approximate 400 lbs.... I do not think this a problem at all, I just want to keep the conversation honest and I will do this with every popular anchor as I suggested..
(please note this means nothing in the real world of anchor use, bc anchors realign themselves, bc they are buried in the substrate, bc you are pulling up as well as in the horizontal plane, bc you never pull exactly at 90 degrees.....
So this exercise can gives you a relative comparison between shank strengths, and has very little practical application. But because there seem to be a lot of confusion on the matter we will proceed....
Also if you need a report I will email it to you....for FREE and we will post on our knowledge base.... stay tunned

Great analysis. Unfortunately, I believe the actual real world testing of the Fortress provides a different result than your calculations, but I think Brian should address that.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

Wouldn't that generally be considered to be normal in-service wear and tear (not damage)?

I guess it depends, which is why it is a bit of a loose end. How long should galvanizing last? How long is a piece of string? If galvanizing fails quicker (in someone's opinion) on the Mantus than on another anchor is that a manufacturing defect? Or is it damage to the steel caused by failed galvanizing? The point is not to debate this angels on the head of a pin type question, but to point out that as worded, the Mantus warranty leaves open the possibility of some scenarios that might not be covered. I very much doubt that is how Mantus would handle the situation, but I didn't start the fly specking of warranty language, I'm just pointing out that unless you have a clear statement like that from Quickline about what they are warrantying, you have room for interpretation.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that I think that Mantus wouldn't warrant their product unconditionally (well, maybe except for galvanizing and...?), because I think they would. Nor am I saying it is a lousy anchor because its shank is currently mild steel. What I am saying is that it is a silly argument to pretend that two shanks are equivalent in engineering value when one is 3 times stronger than the other. Why that seems like a controversial opinion, or one which represents an attack on Mantus is beyond me.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Mantus Anchors

Fortress goes first:
This is a Fortress FX 23 Arm that has undergone stress analysis....
The arm is fixed 28.5 inches from the distal end of the shackle hole (position of the fluke box) Since Fortress decided to keep the material confidential, which is totally within its right. I assumed it was Aluminium Alloy 6061 T6 that has the pretty nice properties... But correct me and I will re-run it using the actual metal specs.... Brian I think that Fortress is a well built anchor and is stronger in shank construction than our shanks currently. But if loaded as JonJo tested in his article would bend not a 2000 lbs as you suggested, and not at 1200 lbs (load on a 40 foot boat in 30 knots) the load I suggested would bend every modern anchor... but it will bend at approximate 400 lbs.... I do not think this a problem at all, I just want to keep the conversation honest and I will do this with every popular anchor as I suggested..
(please note this means nothing in the real world of anchor use, bc anchors realign themselves, bc they are buried in the substrate, bc you are pulling up as well as in the horizontal plane, bc you never pull exactly at 90 degrees.....
So this exercise can gives you a relative comparison between shank strengths, and has very little practical application. But because there seem to be a lot of confusion on the matter we will proceed....
Also if you need a report I will email it to you....for FREE and we will post on our knowledge base.... stay tunned

Greg, interesting.....but inaccurate. This does not take into account the shank design and it's tapering which will assist in dispersing the load throughout the length of the shank.

I have a test video that was made by the Anchor Saver manufacturer which will substantiate the previous claim regarding the FX-23, along with another video of the model FX-16 (10 lb /4.5kg, boats up to 38'), after which this gentleman noted the following:

1. At 850 pounds of pressure with bend, I released the pressure and the shank sprung back to it's original shape.
2. Same as above at 1000 pounds
3. Failure at 1100 plus pounds.

My conclusions;
1. The fx 16 is functional up to 1000 pounds of lateral pull.
2. Failure occurred with permanent distortion at 1100 + pounds of pressure.

One other takeaway is that while a shank might bend at a particular load, it will "spring back" to its original shape up until a certain point (depending on the material), and from that point on further loads will result in some degree of permanent structural damage.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Greg, interesting.....but inaccurate. This does not take into account the shank design and it's tapering which will assist in dispersing the load throughout the length of the shank.

I have a test video that was made by the Anchor Saver manufacturer which will substantiate the previous claim regarding the FX-23, along with another video of the model FX-16 (10 lb /4.5kg, boats up to 38'), after which this gentleman noted the following:

1. At 850 pounds of pressure with bend, I released the pressure and the shank sprung back to it's original shape.
2. Same as above at 1000 pounds
3. Failure at 1100 plus pounds.

My conclusions;
1. The fx 16 is functional up to 1000 pounds of lateral pull.
2. Failure occurred with permanent distortion at 1100 + pounds of pressure.

One other takeaway is that while a shank might bend at a particular load, it will "spring back" to its original shape up until a certain point (depending on the material), and from that point on further loads will result in some degree of permanent structural damage.

I guess one question is how valuable the proposed calculation methodology is if it doesn't map to actual test results.

JonJo, when you wrote the article for Practical Sailor on anchor shafts, did you capture deformation forces?

[transmitterdan]

This ridiculous obsession with shank bending is pushing anchor makers the wrong way. When the stuff hits the fan it's ultimate failure we should care about. Bending but not breaking should be considered a good thing. Anybody that bends a shank in a blow but doesn't break it should write nice letters to the manufacturer.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

This ridiculous obsession with shank bending is pushing anchor makers the wrong way. When the stuff hits the fan it's ultimate failure we should care about. Bending but not breaking should be considered a good thing. Anybody that bends a shank in a blow but doesn't break it should write nice letters to the manufacturer.

So, would you be okay with an anchor shank that was stronger in terms of its resistance to bending, but was as unbreakable as one that was weaker?