Mantus Anchor or Rocna ?

[EighthWonder]

But if you want surface area vs weight - difficult to go past a Fortress?

Jonathan[/QUOTE]


I saw/read the studies/tests that included the Fortress along with the other big players. It's holding strength was incredible. However, the reason I didn't go that route was after reading real life experiences of people using the Fortress. Some were saying that unless bottom conditions are not optimum they just won't set. Others were saying that once pulled they won't reset very well on their own. The Rocna didn't seem to have that problem. (Unless hooking a chunk of concrete ;-D)

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Real stuff is a real nuisance - we all need clean slates and big wallets.

The evolution you describe cannot really be faulted, we all have personal preferences and it would be most boring if we all thought the same.

I might challenge your comment about the Spade shank and I would value an independent view. Look at a comparably weighted Delta (to your Spade) and go to the Lewmar website where all the dimensions are available to all and sundry. Draw up the Delta shank, full size, and then lay your Spade shank on top - I think you will find they are surprisingly similar, the Spade has curves to join up the various angles - but otherwise they are virtually identical. If you were really bored you could take a whole variety of anchors and do the same thing - to find that the Delta shank is the father to them all. Some like the Mantus do not need that selfrighting function (as they have a roll bar) so they are using the self launch idea (of the Delta) but look at non roll bar equivalents and they are angle for angle, length for length - good copies.

But if you want surface area vs weight - difficult to go past a Fortress?

Jonathan

Well, eye might be talking pas reach other here for I have done exactly as you describe above, that's how I got to the Spade.

I agree with your comment on the Fortress, but you know, the Mantus resets, and rests better on the bow roller.

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by EighthWonder

But if you want surface area vs weight - difficult to go past a Fortress?

Jonathan

I saw/read the studies/tests that included the Fortress along with the other big players. It's holding strength was incredible. However, the reason I didn't go that route was after reading real life experiences of people using the Fortress. Some were saying that unless bottom conditions are not optimum they just won't set. Others were saying that once pulled they won't reset very well on their own. The Rocna didn't seem to have that problem. (Unless hooking a chunk of concrete ;-D)[/QUOTE]


My mantra is that all anchors are, currently, a compromise. Find a man who uses the perfect anchor and he is either an anchor maker, a friend of same or being very economical with the truth.

On this basis no anchor is perfect everywhere.

But most of us anchor in mud and sand, we try to steer clear of weed (unless its thin weed) and seabeds composed of rocks and stones are significant by their scarcity - on this basis a Fortress would be pretty ideal - if you were looking for holding capacity over weight.

I have noted the aprocryphal stories of Fortress not re-setting and have tried to simulate the conditions, with out success. Provided I have set the Fortress correctly, and maybe that is the key, then it turns all by itself if the load is applied in a different direction. In fact if you set a Fortress deeply and then move the load through 180 degrees it is very difficult to get it to move at all. But considering the stories of Fortress not re-setting they seem as numerous as the stories of other anchors not re-setting (your Rocna with a lump of concrete, or weed ball, in the fluke - for example). Given the 10s of thousands of Fortress sold (compared with the few new gen anchors) the numbers of dissatisfied Fortress customers (as a result of the anchor not re-setting) is minimal - and moreover seems reiterated ad nauseum by owners of new gen anchors (which makes the numbers and severity of the problem totally out of context)

I have wondered if Fortress success, they have been around for 25 years or more and sold 10s of thousands of anchors, is part of its ill deserved press - yes some people have had bad experiences but in comparison (and 1% of their customer base might be the equal of the total of some new gen anchors) to those that are happy the product is an undoubted and runaway success.

What is interesting is that despite the ill conceived advise given by many of supposed issues with a Fortress virtually all of these same people carry one - which has always seemed something of a contradiction. Damn the product but actually carry one - usually as the anchor of last resort.

When you look at new gen anchors and think of the problems they have had (and I am sure no-one wants to revisit that book) then Fortress and some other new gen anchors look a model to copy - not condemn.

Maybe we need to put comments into context.

We carry a Fortress, I would not hesitate to use it in any situation (and we have used it with total success) but we are not willing to spend a couple of thousand dollars (maybe much more as the bow roller assembly is structural) modifying our bow roller in order to use it as the primary anchor.

Jonathan

[EighthWonder]

Jonathan:
"The 10s of thousands of Fortress sold (compared with the few new gen anchors) the numbers of dissatisfied Fortress customers (as a result of the anchor not re-setting) is minimal - and moreover seems reiterated ad nauseum by owners of new gen anchors (which makes the numbers and severity of the problem totally out of context)"

Excellent point...
And well taken.

It could probably be applied to any number of different anchors.

Eventually, I suppose, it simply comes down to personal choice and the level of comfort we need to sleep out on the water in whatever the weather may throw our way.

[JonJo]

[QUOTE=EighthWonder

Excellent point...
And well taken.

It could probably be applied to any number of different anchors.

Eventually, I suppose, it simply comes down to personal choice and the level of comfort we need to sleep out on the water in whatever the weather may throw our way.[/QUOTE]

+1

And an appreciation that it is a personal choice and the best the individual can make based on their own experience and their assessment of comments from others. It is the individual that will have to live with that choice and their choice, might be wrong, but its the best they could come up with.

Fortunately we have about half a dozen (maybe 10?) decent (not yet perfect) anchors with different charactersitics to choose from = something for everyone

Jonathan

[downunder]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

It is common for cruising boats to increase the size of their anchor with each change.

There is a message in this

45lb to 125lb certainly is BIB almost a record.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by downunder

45lb to 125lb certainly is BIB almost a record.

I think even the Dashew's would be impressed

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by downunder

45lb to 125lb certainly is BIB almost a record.

Well, I've never been known for doing things by halves.

[motion30]

I went from a 45lb supreme to a 105lb mantus

[N4712]

Originally Posted by motion30

I went from a 45lb supreme to a 105lb mantus

Are you pleased with it?

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by motion30

I went from a 45lb supreme to a 105lb mantus

Sorry but I really need to ask:

What possesed you to buy a 45lb Supreme if you really needed a 105lb Mantus. (though the models are not that relevant - why buy any, decent, 45lb anchor and then change it for a 105lb replacement)

Its a bit like buying one of these tiny Daihatsu and changing it for a Land Cruiser.

Very puzzled

Jonathan

[motion30]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Sorry but I really need to ask:

What possesed you to buy a 45lb Supreme if you really needed a 105lb Mantus. (though the models are not that relevant - why buy any, decent, 45lb anchor and then change it for a 105lb replacement)

Its a bit like buying one of these tiny Daihatsu and changing it for a Land Cruiser.

Very puzzled

Jonathan

The 45lb surpreme was a carry over from my last boat.actually it works surprisingly well except for grassy bottoms were sometimes I could not get it to
Set. my current boat is a 40000 pounds MY with a tall fly bridge and lots of wind. An 85lb probably would have been plenty big

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by JonJo

+1

And an appreciation that it is a personal choice and the best the individual can make based on their own experience and their assessment of comments from others. It is the individual that will have to live with that choice and their choice, might be wrong, but its the best they could come up with.

Fortunately we have about half a dozen (maybe 10?) decent (not yet perfect) anchors with different charactersitics to choose from = something for everyone

Jonathan

Thanks for saying it that way Jonathan.

I don't have all the anchoring experience that others here have, but I have had some disagreeable events occur. Some were undoubtedly due to poor actions on my part. But some were not.

Also,most of my sailing has been in somewhat remote areas, Newfoundland. Anchoring can be hazardous for a number of reasons, not the least of which is abandoned fishing gear, which is no fun to catch. Some "anchorages" are deep and sloping. Some are just soft, soft mud. Besides the story I related above I had the little boat (33' 16,000 pound) drag on a CQR that I set well after several tries. I rode there for a week on a long rode and one afternoon she went walkabout, just a little more wind than normal.

I've done a bit of diving and can say that at least one "harbor" was nothing but rock. I've had kelp like some of the pictures you see from Patagonia, where the entire chain was involved. ( That, BTW, was on a 45 pound Rocna an was without incident.)

So my experience is limited, but over a very wide range of bottoms. I don't want to keep shifting anchors (although I could if I had to) so I want something pretty fair anywhere. Yeah, if I was just in the Chesapeake then maybe my choices would be different, not a lot of kelp or gravel here.

That is part of what makes these anchor discussions so difficult, the variety of boat, bottom, experience, etc.

Now, suppose you just found an extra $1,000, what would you buy....
A...bigger or better anchor
B...life raft
C...AED

[JonJo]

hpeer,

We have Excels, Spades and Fortress - without getting into arguments I think they are perfectly good designs and cover most/all eventualities. I'm not a BIB advocate and prefer the flexibility of the different designs and am quite comfortable deploying a second anchor (or finding a tree or 2).

Given $1,000 then:

If we are limiting spending to safety devices (which seems to sadly exclude decent malt whisky) I'd look at PLBs (is that what you call them in America? or personal EPIRBS)

Reasoning - more crew are lost overboard (for ever) than yachts sunk or lives lost through using a recommended sized anchor.

Liferafts here cost a bit more than you suggest they might in America (and have a pretty hefty on going maintenance cost (and we have one anyway!). An AED, not on my shopping list at all - what sort of power demand do they have anyway?

Jonathan

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by JonJo

I saw/read the studies/tests that included the Fortress along with the other big players. It's holding strength was incredible. However, the reason I didn't go that route was after reading real life experiences of people using the Fortress. Some were saying that unless bottom conditions are not optimum they just won't set. Others were saying that once pulled they won't reset very well on their own. The Rocna didn't seem to have that problem. (Unless hooking a chunk of concrete ;-D)

My mantra is that all anchors are, currently, a compromise. Find a man who uses the perfect anchor and he is either an anchor maker, a friend of same or being very economical with the truth.

On this basis no anchor is perfect everywhere.

But most of us anchor in mud and sand, we try to steer clear of weed (unless its thin weed) and seabeds composed of rocks and stones are significant by their scarcity - on this basis a Fortress would be pretty ideal - if you were looking for holding capacity over weight.

I have noted the aprocryphal stories of Fortress not re-setting and have tried to simulate the conditions, with out success. Provided I have set the Fortress correctly, and maybe that is the key, then it turns all by itself if the load is applied in a different direction. In fact if you set a Fortress deeply and then move the load through 180 degrees it is very difficult to get it to move at all. But considering the stories of Fortress not re-setting they seem as numerous as the stories of other anchors not re-setting (your Rocna with a lump of concrete, or weed ball, in the fluke - for example). Given the 10s of thousands of Fortress sold (compared with the few new gen anchors) the numbers of dissatisfied Fortress customers (as a result of the anchor not re-setting) is minimal - and moreover seems reiterated ad nauseum by owners of new gen anchors (which makes the numbers and severity of the problem totally out of context)

I have wondered if Fortress success, they have been around for 25 years or more and sold 10s of thousands of anchors, is part of its ill deserved press - yes some people have had bad experiences but in comparison (and 1% of their customer base might be the equal of the total of some new gen anchors) to those that are happy the product is an undoubted and runaway success.

What is interesting is that despite the ill conceived advise given by many of supposed issues with a Fortress virtually all of these same people carry one - which has always seemed something of a contradiction. Damn the product but actually carry one - usually as the anchor of last resort.

When you look at new gen anchors and think of the problems they have had (and I am sure no-one wants to revisit that book) then Fortress and some other new gen anchors look a model to copy - not condemn.

Maybe we need to put comments into context.

We carry a Fortress, I would not hesitate to use it in any situation (and we have used it with total success) but we are not willing to spend a couple of thousand dollars (maybe much more as the bow roller assembly is structural) modifying our bow roller in order to use it as the primary anchor.

Jonathan[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you misunderstand why most people carry a Fortress on the stern rail, but most don't have them loaded on the roller. They are the best kedge, stern anchor, or back-up storm anchor bar none. I have one on my stern rail, but I don't want to use it for a bower (main) anchor precisely because of the re-set issues.

The re-set in a shift is not just a ghost story people tell. A variation happened to me about two months ago with a danforth (note that a Fortress is just a fancy danforth and shares the same weaknesses and advantages, but is better executed than average and very light) and resulted in a complete failure of the anchoring system (not just an annoying slow drag. It was an all hands on deck scramble as we were dragging very fast. Luckily, the wind was such that we were heading to deeper water. If it had been the other way, we would have been in trouble very, very quickly.

We had set the anchor well on 5:1 rode (mostly rope with some heavy chain on the end) in the direction of the expected strong winds in the morning. In the evening there was no wind and a light current that drifted us past the anchor. When the tide shifted, we drifted back to where we started, but the rode had wrapped around the stock of the anchor. When the wind came up it was quite gusty, peaking at about 20 knots. We held through the night, but suddenly came loose while eating breakfast. Luckily we were all up and noticed right away. When we got the anchor up, the rode was fully tangled in the anchor so that it was being dragged sideways.

I'm sure that if we hadn't gotten a really solid set the night before, it would have pulled out much earlier.