Ultra Anchor Review

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

What I suppose would be hard to know would be what scope the gentleman had out before backing down. 2:1 might be less effective than 4:1, no?

Normally you can the estimate the scope pretty well when watching someone drop with a side on view, just by judging how far they move back from the drop point before they put too much pressure on the chain. (Or when I dive and look)

This boat did drop while still partially going forward which makes estimation of the scope more difficult. My best judgment was that it was about 5:1, I very much doubt it less than 3:1, but its not impossible.

The above anchoring technique is also not very good. They would have been left with a mess of chain rather than a neat strait line layout. However from the bad start they did back very slowly and applied force on the chain and ultimately the anchor in a reasonably slow and steady fashion.

I certainly would not judge the anchor on this one occasion, but I keep a mental scorecard of all the anchors I see and it was not a great start.

[CarlF]

I carry an 77lb Ultra and a Supreme as secondary ( the Ultra fit the bowsprit well). Last boat had a Delta. The one before that was a CQR.

I also have been more than pleased with the Ultra. In about 200 nights of anchoring from Maine to the Bahamas in a variety of "difficult" anchorages, I've only had one minor drag - in a known soft mud bottom harbor when a 50knot 180 degree wind reversing thunderstorm came through. The anchor dragged about 100ft before it finally found something firm.

In every other case, the anchor has set (and reset on wind change) the first time with no apparent movement from where it hit the bottom. Several storms with 60 knot gusts. While I rarely use the Supreme, I have had more troubles getting it to set (although it is far, far better than the Delta or CQR).

I usually anchor with between 4:1 or 5:1 scope but have good performance at 3:1 (which the Delta could never handle). I wouldn't sleep with less scope so don't try.

I second the comment that the Ultra brings up less bottom muck presumably because of no hoop and the very smooth stainless.

It is expensive and I would probably have gone with a galvanized Rocna or Supreme if it had fit the bowsprit. I consider them (and the Spade) great anchors. But I'm happy I spent the extra money for the Ultra - it wasn't much more in the grand scheme.


Carl

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

This is a commonly used technique especially with CQR anchors.


Without being able to explain any plausible mechanism I am still not sure its not a placebo, but it worth a try if nothing else will set the anchor.

It works on the Ultra because the weight is in the tip, and once the tip settles in and begins to bite, a diving anchor will keep burying itself until it hits something impenetrable. The deeper it bites, the deeper it wants to go since the diving surface area increases, and there is no hoop backboard to inhibit it from diving in thicker soils. The Rocna lacks that weight, which is why Mr. Smith always insisted (according to emails provided by his employee) that before a Rocna was sent for testing, the tip had to be sharpened. One off the shelf wasn't part of the plan. I can certainly see how the dragon tooth tip on the Rocna allows it to bite quite well, and why the anchor performs well in most circumstances.

Sometime when you're in the Pacific NW, I'll ask you to dive my anchor to see what's going on, but perhaps bring your wetsuit. And a flashlight. And Novocaine for the stinging jellyfish. I dove for quite awhile up here, and frankly, I'll rather take a cold shower in the dark.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I've never been a big fan of vigorous backing down on the anchor as soon as scope is played out. It's always made more sense to me to let the darn thing settle for an hour or so, as even difficult bottoms will be penetrated sometimes if you subject the anchor to tugging vs a power pull. Kind of like driving a nail into hard wood - a few taps gets its started, then you can whack away.

If I suspect the bed is problematic, or expect a blow, we'll let out scope taking into account the height of the bow roller to the bottom, plus any additional tidal change, let it sit for a half hour, then back down on it to verify set, then attach 30' of snub line. So far, so good.

For whatever it may be worth, my technique is to let the anchor settle a bit (a couple of minutes, not a half hour), then gently back down on it, with gradually increasing revs, ending with full power for several minutes.

I fully agree with you about the desirability of "gentle tugging" at first, but in my experience if the anchor bites, it will withstand a harder pull quite soon.

Works well for us -- never dragged a single time in about 13 years of using new gen anchors.

We also had exceptionally good luck anchoring on this year's summer cruise -- our anchor (a 100 pound Spade) set first time, every single time, and in some difficult bottoms where other boats had a lot of trouble. A French couple actually came over to warn us in Alderny that the bottom in our spot was unsuitable; that it was impossible to anchor safely there! They had dragged several times and decided to leave. We also hung on our anchor for three or four days in winds up to and sometimes over 40 knots -- in perpetually wind-swept Ushant -- with the chain bar tight.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

For whatever it may be worth, my technique is to let the anchor settle a bit (a couple of minutes, not a half hour), then gently back down on it, with gradually increasing revs, ending with full power for several minutes.

I fully agree with you about the desirability of "gentle tugging" at first, but in my experience if the anchor bites, it will withstand a harder pull quite soon.

Works well for us -- never dragged a single time in about 13 years of using new gen anchors.

We also had exceptionally good luck anchoring on this year's summer cruise -- our anchor (a 100 pound Spade) set first time, every single time, and in some difficult bottoms where other boats had a lot of trouble. A French couple actually came over to warn us in Alderny that the bottom in our spot was unsuitable; that it was impossible to anchor safely there! They had dragged several times and decided to leave. We also hung on our anchor for three or four days in winds up to and sometimes over 40 knots -- in perpetually wind-swept Ushant -- with the chain bar tight.

That seems to be pretty consistent with others reports on the Spade. The Ultra is such a close Spade analog, although covered by its own patents, that I presume it will also perform as well as your Spade over time.

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

This is a commonly used technique especially with CQR anchors.
It does seem to help many anchors set although I struggle to understand why it makes any difference in light wind. With a hardish substrate you can dive on the anchor leave it for a long time and if there has been less than 15 k, or even 20k wind it looks exactly the same. In stronger wind it will start to wriggle itself in, but proponents of the technique claim the "give it time to settle" works irrespective of the wind/current conditions and it does seem to be of some help. Why I do not know.

Without being able to explain any plausible mechanism I am still not sure its not a placebo, but it worth a try if nothing else will set the anchor.

It is annoying to do and with a new generation anchor should be unnecessary they usually set no matter what abuse you give them (other than very short scope)

I look forward to our next trip to Cuttyhunk that I wrote about recently. No screwing around next time and no "let it gently set." I intend to repeatedly pull hard with port engine, then pull hard with starboard engine causing the anchor to yaw and work its way into mother mud, rock sand, poop and what nots. The last pull will occur after the boat settles pointing into the wind. Then that anchor is going to get pulled while I apply power from both engines. All this is going to be done with as much scope as I can safely deploy, hopefully 8+, time will tell on that.

I also will have a track of the initial set on my GPS AND I WILL TAKE A PICTURE of teh original set.

Schedule permitting, we will be back at Cutty maybe during the middle of next week.

Foggy

[robert sailor]

We are in the Med and use a 25K Rocna. Its worked well and the Cyclades are seldom without a stiff breeze. I have dived it many times and I see the same thing each time. The anchor sets so that the hoop is visible and the top of the shank is also visible. When I've been in the water I have from time to time looked at other anchors. The Bruce anchor seems to set quite well in sand and in a couple of cases when asked to check their anchor I found that the whole anchor was buried. I have seen a couple of CQR's that were still just laying on their side but that may be the operator as the typical sailor in the Med is much better at Med mooring than anchoring.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

We are in the Med and use a 25K Rocna. Its worked well and the Cyclades are seldom without a stiff breeze. I have dived it many times and I see the same thing each time. The anchor sets so that the hoop is visible and the top of the shank is also visible. When I've been in the water I have from time to time looked at other anchors. The Bruce anchor seems to set quite well in sand and in a couple of cases when asked to check their anchor I found that the whole anchor was buried. I have seen a couple of CQR's that were still just laying on their side but that may be the operator as the typical sailor in the Med is much better at Med mooring than anchoring.

It would be interesting if you get a chance to report on diving anchors like the Spade, Ultra, etc. I would expect them to be completely under the surface where the hoop style would be as you observed - buried to the point where the vertical hoop presents enough resistance to further burying that it ceases diving.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by foggysail

I look forward to our next trip to Cuttyhunk that I wrote about recently. No screwing around next time and no "let it gently set." I intend to repeatedly pull hard with port engine, then pull hard with starboard engine causing the anchor to yaw and work its way into mother mud, rock sand, poop and what nots. The last pull will occur after the boat settles pointing into the wind.

Yes that would be interesting.
Full reverse on my yacht is only equivalent to about 30k of wind but I imagine you can generate quite a bit more force.
I have no idea if the "rocking" will produce a better or worse set.

I occasionally set the anchor in a different direction from the usual downwind (so the anchor is set crosswind or even upwind). These sets are always worse. The wind together with prop walk whilst setting produces a gradual change in the direction of pull which results in a poorer set.
This is not the same as pulling slightly one way then another, but it does suggest a consistent direction of pull is important when setting.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

It would be interesting if you get a chance to report on diving anchors like the Spade, Ultra, etc. I would expect them to be completely under the surface where the hoop style would be as you observed - buried to the point where the vertical hoop presents enough resistance to further burying that it ceases diving.

I have dived on a lot anchors. The Spade anchor is quite popular here mainly on French boats.
The Spade is a great anchor, but does not set any better than the Rocna/Manson Supreme.

The thick toe of the Spade seems to resist penetration as much as the thinner profile on the toe of the Rocna/MS combined with the roll bar. This is, of course, a very simplistic view. The actual depth of set is combination of many complex factors.

It is surprising to me that the very different designs of Spade and Rocna/MS produce such similar results underwater. They are consistently the best two types of anchor in the anchorage.

This also reflects the user reviews reported on CF. With these anchors generally given the best reports.
It will be interesting to see how the newcomers Ultra, Mantus Manson Boss and others stack up as we start to get more real world evidence. I have not seen any of these anchors underwater yet.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I have dived on a lot anchors. The Spade anchor is quite popular here mainly on French boats.
The Spade is a great anchor, but does not set any better than the Rocna/Manson Supreme.

The thick toe of the Spade seems to resist penetration as much as the thinner profile on the toe of the Rocna/MS combined with the roll bar. This is, of course, a very simplistic view. The actual depth of set is combination of many complex factors.

It is surprising to me that the very different designs of Spade and Rocna/MS produce such similar results underwater. They are consistently the best two types of anchor in the anchorage.

This also reflects the user reviews reported on CF. With these anchors generally given the best reports.
It will be interesting to see how the newcomers Ultra, Mantus Manson Boss and others stack up as we start to get more real world evidence. I have not seen any of these anchors underwater yet.

I have a lot of experience with Spades on two different boats, and I owned and used a 55kg Rocna for three years, too. In my experience, both Spade and Rocna practically undraggable once set, but Spade distinctly easier to set - digs in much more sharply than the Rocna. It always seemed to me that the lead ballast and sharper fluke of the Spade made the difference, but can't know for sure since I obviously never dived my own anchor while it was being set

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

but can't know for sure since I obviously never dived my own anchor while it was being set

You should try it occasionally.

If you cannot get the anchor to set it's very useful where there is clear warm water and no crocodiles .

The person in the water can pick the ideal spot then control the setting and reverse power on the boat with hand signals.

It is totally unnecessary in most circumstances, but it can be very useful with older generation anchors in hard substrates. It is also very educational regarding what is going on, so it's worth doing if you get the opportunity to see how your anchor behaves.

[Katiusha]

We have been using Ultra this year in the Med, first France, now Croatia. We've been anchoring in sand, hard sand, gravel, rock, weed, and so far it dragged only once in sparse weed over pretty much flat rock. It sets within a meter of where it hits the bottom. We let out chain, then back, then back hard for about half a minute with twin 85 hp at full throttle. Our usual scope now is (yep, roll your eyes) 2:1. In nice sand we use 1.5:1. Very useful in tiny coves that we have to ourselves. If we know that it's going to blow we use 3:1 or sometimes even 4:1. Of course all chain.

Very pleased with the anchor so far. Big change from CQR and Bruce that we had before.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Katiusha

Our usual scope now is (yep, roll your eyes) 2:1. In nice sand we use 1.5:1. Very useful in tiny coves that we have to ourselves. If we know that it's going to blow we use 3:1 or sometimes even 4:1. Of course all chain.

Interesting thanks for the report.

The new generation anchors are much better than the old, but one area they do not seem to improved upon is performance on a very short scope.

The old generation Bruce (as long as is is large) I would still rate as perhaps the best anchor if you must anchor at a very short scope.
It seems the Ulra may offer some significant improvement in this regard.

With my own Rocna I do occasional anchor at very short scopes say 2:1, or less but the anchor does not set well, or at all. I can get it to hold full reverse on occasions, (meaning its probably OK to around 30k ) but when diving the anchors set is pretty appalling. Most of the holding is due to large size. I expect a similarly sized old generation anchor would do as well. A Bruce probably better.

I useful technique is to set the anchor on a larger scope and then shorten it. Once set and buried it will hold on a short scope much better, but this is not always possible. If the Ultra is an anchor that sets well on a short scope it would be significant improvement.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

You should try it occasionally.

If you cannot get the anchor to set it's very useful where there is clear warm water and no crocodiles .

The person in the water can pick the ideal spot then control the setting and reverse power on the boat with hand signals.

It is totally unnecessary in most circumstances, but it can be very useful with older generation anchors in hard substrates. It is also very educational regarding what is going on, so it's worth doing if you get the opportunity to see how your anchor behaves.

I believe you, but where I sail it would be a whole production due to water temperature.